Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like the topic says, world ends for whatever reason. How long do you think it would take you (if at all) to go from normal person to willing to do anything to survive savage? Seems like its pretty easy for some people to do this.

Lets say two guys confront you with or without intent to kill (you don't know) but they do not see your gun/knife/whatever, do you:

A) Attack first then take anything of value off the bodies
B) Attack first then move on
C) Run away and fight only if you cant escape
D) Run regardless of being able to escape or not and maybe end up dead
E) Try to talk your way out of it and maybe succeed or maybe not

I guess what im really asking is would you have any personal problems with doing whatever necessary to keep yourself alive.

Probably some instances i might be missing but anyways what are everyone's thoughts.

For the purposes of your decision lets say its not like "The Road" bad but its not exactly fun and rainbows either.

Personally i don't think it would take a whole bunch for me to go straight to option a or b.

Depends on how ended the world was - how many people there were left, whether there were any animals left, whether there were big scary mutants trying to eat everything, etc

However, if, say, 99.99% of the population just vanished one night, I think that I would remain relatively civil. I would be wary of strangers, but would not attack them on sight, and instead would attempt to join up with them if they didn't look like they would slit my throat in the night.

I would only attack first if they clearly meant me harm.

I would try option E, and failing that go straight to option A. If I was surviving in post-apocalyptia, I would try to be as civilised as possible (no mindless attacking) and I would only attack something if it was absolutely necessary.

Good point, edited op to make it a bit more clear cut.

Bwar wrote:Like the topic says, world ends for whatever reason. How long do you think it would take you (if at all) to go from normal person to willing to do anything to survive savage?

About 5 minutes. Option 'A'

Woo blood for the blood god!

Khornholio wrote:

About 5 minutes. Option 'A'

+1

Depends, if most of the human population just dissapeared, I would stay friendly. There would be easy enough essentials for me too survive for a long time, and if people started going savage I would just gather lots of supplies and lock myself away from everyone.

If food and other essentials started to run out I would probably end up fighting a bit. Not mindlessly attacking but I could see raiding people becoming a normal thing.

Dammit I'm English, man.

Stiff upper lip an' all, what what!

But then if the monocle should be lost and no more tiffin at threeses, who knows what it may do to a chap.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
But then if the monocle should be lost and no more tiffin at threeses, who knows what it may do to a chap.

Hahaha! Amazing! you get one of these:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:who knows what it may do to a chap.

Quite my dear fellow. However, one must consider the effect that not having one's manservant available to prepare afternoon tea on the constitution of the otherwise gentlemanly classes.

I would think of banding up first. If that began to look improbable, like if the just seemed like bloodthirsty cannibals or incompetant looters of no use to me or something then yeah it's crowbar time... let the beatdown begin. I'm pretty sure most people in a scenario of you-or-me would say "I pick me, sorry donkey-cave"

Guitardian wrote:I would think of banding up first. If that began to look improbable, like if the just seemed like bloodthirsty cannibals or incompetant looters of no use to me or something then yeah it's crowbar time... let the beatdown begin. I'm pretty sure most people in a scenario of you-or-me would say "I pick me, sorry donkey-cave"

This is why I personally dont understand anti gun people.


I know theres a small group of us that would band together and be super tight. But anyone out side of this circle, will be lucky if they dont end up dead. Im not saying mindless violence, but I just dont trust people, specially in situations like that

I'd try and start a city with as many like minded family, friends, people etc. I'd catalogue everyone's talents and all of our available supplies. Then I'd talk with everyone and see if we couldn't start growing crops to feed ourselves and put up some walls for defense. Then with a list of everyone's talents I'd ask everyone to start pitching in with their talents. I would hope that the city would prosper and grow and maybe others would hear of it and start doing the same so we could rebuild humanity.

We'd vote on some laws and vote on a sheriff and a couple of deputies, unless of course any in the group were law enforcement to begin with. Of course, I think the laws would have to be fairly strict and punishment fairly brutal at first. They would probably be pretty basic laws such as, no stealing, no murdering, etc.

I would also train every citizen to be a citizen-soldier. In this manner we'd have a minute-man militia for town defense.

I'd gather as many books as I could on as many different topics and start educating the town's people. Education would consist of practical trades, first aid, etc along with the typical stuff we study now a days.

I'd pray and hope for the best.

Apocalyptic scenarios are some of my favorite to muse on lol

4M2A wrote:Depends, if most of the human population just dissapeared, I would stay friendly. There would be easy enough essentials for me too survive for a long time, and if people started going savage I would just gather lots of supplies and lock myself away from everyone.

If food and other essentials started to run out I would probably end up fighting a bit. Not mindlessly attacking but I could see raiding people becoming a normal thing.

This. As he stated if 9/10 people had just vanished overnight there will be plentiful supplies. Joining up sounds like a good idea. However, if we're talking short supply then raiding people would definitely occur. Of course, you'd probably join a 'tribe' of your own before commencing any raids against other 'tribes' of survivors. Mindless violence doesn't benefit me or anyone else in this situation, violence for food and clothes just might. But I would attempt to form a group first.

What you have to remember is that 9/10 people vanishing is not actually all that many people. If you think about it, even in the offices where I work, that would still leave 4-5 people.

With so many people still left, things may get ugly a lot faster than if there were only 1/1000 or less people around. Then again, with 1/10 people still being around, you stand more chance of there being enough of the governmnet/law enforcement/armed forces/etc being left that some kind of vestige of nation with law and order may be maintained.

I think the ideal may well be somewhere between 1/10,000 and 1/100,000. Few enough people that you don't have to compete for resources directly, but enough that you can form societies.

You need to remember that a group needs to be over a certain size in order to be able to support "non-workers", ie those who do not work directly to support the group, people such as teachers, who will spend their time passing on knowledge to the next generations. Below a critical number, they and the children must spend most of their time simply ensuring the group's continued physical existance.

(in a stereotypical hillbilly accent)

" Aww gee Maw! Cain't we have somethin' other thain Zombie Soup? Just forewunce!"

If Fallout has taught us anything is that Option A is all the best. When in doubt: Loot since you never know who has ammo.

Pipboy101 wrote:If Fallout has taught us anything is that Option A is all the best. When in doubt: Loot since you never know who has ammo.

hehe, good old Fallout. Great series.

Plus, Fallout tells us that ammo doesn't weigh anything!

Some people will revert to savagery quite quickly, others will retain civilisation and will inevitably win in the long run thanks to the superiority of co-operation and team-work over brute force.

SilverMK2 wrote:Plus, Fallout tells us that ammo doesn't weigh anything!

Pfft. Fallout 3 doesn't count. It did in the originals.

regard other survivors with caution, observe them from a distance and if they seem civil enough prepare your ground then approach them carefully hailing them for a distance with options of retreat open if they turn hostile.

Always run rather than fight, if you need to fight you are leading your adversary into prepared ground, otherwise avoid them. From the admittedly sketchy scenario brief its safe to assume there is planty of space for coexistence if not resources.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Plus, Fallout tells us that ammo doesn't weigh anything!

Pfft. Fallout 3 doesn't count. It did in the originals.

I'd be after the lizard on a stick personally.

I would lead with talk and diplomacy, whilst keeping my distance.

Even if you had gone full savage and wanted to loot these strangers, option D would be the best way to lead off. If they chase you, one will be faster than the other. A sneaky little git with a reasonable sprint has a much better chance ambushing one guy hurrying through the woods than he would attacking two guys head on.

When you go savage, you no longer have to worry about fair play or civilized behavior. Also, make sure that you do not kill the first one you attack. His ally screaming will surely put the other opponent off of his game and draw him like a magnet. Back out of the clearing, circle, and wait to ambush the other guy before interrogating the disabled first foe for any food or weapon caches they had hidden nearby before dispatching him or abandoning him.

Pull out a gun tell them to get on the ground and drop any weapons , if civil , try to compreamise to find more survivores .

What do you mean how long does it take? Have you seen me at lunch time?

British people will never turn savage! No Sah! Not whilst we have a queen and country!

I feel oddly patriotic. It feels strange.

Ktulhut wrote:

Khornholio wrote:

About 5 minutes. Option 'A'

+1

+2.

In this situation,I'd rather be the guy who's drawing breath who killed the people who didn't mean any harm,than the dead guy who tried to hold a sumit with a couple of guys who were trying to kill him.

FITZZ wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:

Khornholio wrote:

About 5 minutes. Option 'A'

+1

+2.

In this situation,I'd rather be the guy who's drawing breath who killed the people who didn't mean any harm,than the dead guy who tried to hold a sumit with a couple of guys who were trying to kill him.

Ditto. Shoot first, ask questions never.