Roleplaying your zombie apocalypse
by Michael Gray 
Oct 24th 2008 at 6:00PM
Step one is to become a zombie. Step two, rampage around a lowbie zone. Step three, scream "Braiiinnnns!" for everyone to hear. Step four, wait for an immersive roleplayer named "Pwnsurface" to kill you, in accordance to his Retribution Paladin's most tightly held beliefs.
Okay, there's a little more to roleplaying the event than that. It's tempting to launch yourself at the suspicious crates and transform into a brain-hungry beast. But to borrow a quote from a roleplayer on Shadow Council, if you're going to do that, chances are that what you're really doing is "taking an OOC day."
Most characters in the Alliance and Horde aren't yearning to find themselves transformed into an instinct-driven cranium muncher. Zombies are not only evil, they're members of the Scourge, out to destroy all life as we know it. They also have fairly bad personal hygiene. (Okay, so maybe they're not that much different from the Forsaken.)
But to us players, Zombies are cool. You get to do stuff, and attack people, and explode, and convert people into zombies, and it rocks! And while your character might find itself outta bubblegum, and decide to start kicking butt instead, you-the-player might feel bad for ruining someone else's good time.
Still, there is roleplay to be had here!
We can roleplay this in a way that makes everyone happy, and we can make it work. So, let's take a look at the deep, meaningful stories that motivate your zombie as you spend your angst-filled nights struggling against intolerance, pain, the indifference of a cruel world, and the eternal hunger for gray matter.
- Vast panic as your character realizes what's happening! At this point, you can't so much as wander by the Gnome King or the Ogrimmar Auction House without seeing those Argent Healer fellas trying to spoil our fun.
As players, we watch the time tick down to zombification with mouth-watering glee. Our characters, though, are gonna freak out. "Oh my god! What's happening to me?" They may have already seen other zombies rampaging in Auberdine. Roleplay it out! Now's your time to flex your melodrama, and spam some yells. "My eyes, I can't feel my eyes!" - Try and communicate with the newly undead. Don't simply reach for your axe and start swinging. "Mulder, you're not you!" Give it a few heartbeats, and test the in-character knowledge that this jowl-slavering beast might be reverted back to humanity. You can't know until you try, right?
- Talk about it. Man, this is the simplest suggestion, and it's often ignored. Spend some time both as zombies and living critters talking about what's happening. Don't naturally jet to the OOC channel, but instead, spend some time living out some zombie tropes. Hit the "walk" button, and try -- in vain -- to get away from a zombie, like a co-ed trying to flee Jason.
- Create your Death Knight. C'mon. You're going to have one -- so am I. Create an alt, now, with the name you're going to use for your Death Knight. Level it up a bit, then have him horribly killed and turned into a zombie.
This could be a great roleplaying opportunity, as you honestly get to go on a rampage and kill your own faction. Since many RP Death Knights out there are bound to have the "I went evil, killed my family, and now I angst eternal" thing going on, this event could be a legitimate chance for you to play it out in-game!
These are, obviously, just a few suggestions. But the zombie apocalypse is here, and we should use it to our best advantage.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Events, Humor, RP
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Saelorn Oct 24th 2008 6:08PM
That bubblegum quote is widely, WIDELY misused. By any reasonable analysis, it is an "and" statement; if you don't have bubblegum, then you can't kick butt.
peagle Oct 24th 2008 6:11PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso
(Caution: Somewhat violent content)
Darthregis Oct 24th 2008 6:16PM
By any reasonable anaysis, there is no reason to conclude that bubble gum is necessary to kick butt.
True, it is an "and" statement, but that doesn't mean it is a limiting condition where if you cannot do one action, the other action is also impossible to do.
What it means is that one's attention would have previously divided into two actions can now be directed to just one action; the kicking of butts.
miked Oct 24th 2008 6:17PM
The way I always understood it is thus:
First part: "it's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum..."
Translation: My bubble-gum chewing alarm just went off. I also have some ass-kicking scheduled.
Second part: "...and I'm all out of gum."
Translation: I can't perform both of my scheduled activities due to lack of resources. I will focus all of my energy on my other task, kicking ass.
Saelorn Oct 24th 2008 6:30PM
It is not time to A and time to B. It is time to "A+B". If A is unavailable, then A+B shall not be performed.
It is time to wash and dry my clothes. I have one action to perform: wash and dry my clothes. If either the washing machine or the drying machine are broken, my action must go un-done.
Amaxe Oct 24th 2008 6:31PM
That was my interpretation yes
Kris Oct 24th 2008 6:34PM
There is an added component to this... He is Annoyed that he is without bubblegum, and so not only will he devote his entire being to kicking ass, but he'll be taking that annoyance out in a catharsis of not-chewing.
Cow Oct 24th 2008 6:36PM
It's 'kick ass and chew bubblegum, but I'm all outta gum'.
Meaning he's solely focused on kicking ass.
Arktic Oct 24th 2008 6:46PM
3 options here:
a) 'kick ass'
b) 'chew bubblegum'
c) 'kick ass and chew bubblegum'
since there is no gum to be chewed you cannot 'chew bubblegum', and you can not 'kick ass and chew bubblegum'. Thus someone may come to the conclusion that the final option is 'kick ass', however there is a hidden option d) 'do something else'. since we have established that the speaker cannot do option b or c, then they must be doing a or d. There is not enough information provided in the statement to make an accurate conclusion as to what will be done. It would also be wrong to conclude that either a or d will be performed.
Saelorn Oct 24th 2008 6:53PM
@Arktic
There is nowhere implied that either (a) or (b) are options. The proposed statement is to engage in (c), or failing at that, engage in not (c).
Worcester Oct 24th 2008 7:28PM
An interesting debate, however, Peagle has provided the only empirical evidence in this case... supporting the notion that if you do not have bubblegum, your focus will be on the kicking of butts.
It is possible that our hero had other options of things to do, but he was clearly capable of kicking butt, even without bubblegum.
In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I declare the bubblegum chewing/butt kicking controversy to be resolved!
Although it should be noted that it was, in fact, the Zombies (or in this case, zombie-like aliens) who were having their butts kicked... and not the other way around.
Saelorn Oct 24th 2008 7:37PM
Maybe the speaker is a bubblegum-powered butt-kicking machine. Nothing is stated one way or the other, but if this were the case, then not having bubblegum would indeed prevent it from kicking butt.
stonehead Oct 24th 2008 7:38PM
Saelorn, you are
a) wrong, AND
b) obnoxious
Look at the source of the quote, 1988's They Live. The character comes in, says the line and immediately starts kicking ass. The quote is not being misused. It's is in this case, and just about every other case, being used correctly. I'm not sure if this is a failure of a troll attempt or if you're just that dense, but all the rest of the comments were funny, and yours were obnoxious.
Overused, yes. Misused...IT'S NOT THAT FRIGGIN HARD TO UNDERSTAND!
Saelorn Oct 24th 2008 7:53PM
@stonehead
I am not wrong (in this instance), and I don't care if I'm obnoxious (ever); I do care about promoting the correct use of grammar in logical sentences.
While subsequent quotes tend to be faithful to the source, the original use you mention is incorrect. This is what I mean when I say that the quote is misused.
He should have used an "or" in that sentence if he wanted to say what he obviously meant (based on context).
skreeran Oct 24th 2008 8:48PM
But it's a dialectic quote from a movie. It's excused from gramatical correctness.
If someone is speakin' in cockney, they dun 'afta use grammatical correctitude niether. You could argue tha' the orginal speaker wos incorrect in 'is conclusion, but 'e said wha'eva 'e wanted to say, wot?
Blech, anyway, the point is, it's a movie quote. If you were to argue with the writer that this character says something gramatically incorrect, what would he tell you? He'd say soemthing along the lines of "But the character doesn't care about being gramatically incorrect. He just wants to kick some ass." And he'd be right.
If every character in every movie, book, poem, or play ever made spoke perfect english, there would be a severe lack of diversity in the world of art. Because not all people speak perfect english, and while at least an attempt should be made when used formally (I'm not going to put "I want this job so I can get lots of money and stuff" or "I'm real good at [insert job here], so you should hire me" on a job application, I should be formal), when writing fiction, an equally great attempt must be made for your character to sounds like who they are. If I'm writing a gritty undercover cop, who's wife was killed by the mob, you know, standard loose-cannon cop on the edge fare, I'm not going to have him go ask someone "Sir, if I could bother you for the location of the nearest bus stop?"
Argh, I just beat your point to death, and don't try and tell me that I didn't, because no matter what you say, the quote is from a movie that was made 20 years ago, and it has entered society. This is not the first place it has been referenced, and it's not the last. So quit trying to correct the grammar of a fictional character, it's not going to change anything.
Aerei Oct 24th 2008 9:42PM
Saelorn, stop trolling.
Jenny Oct 25th 2008 4:14AM
Sealorn is correct, except that "kicking ass and chewing bubblegum" is not an aggregate action. They are, in fact, two separate actions that can be performed independent of each other. What is wrong with my life that I actually have to explain this.
grravie Oct 24th 2008 6:24PM
can zombies be classified as "evil"? they dont have any cognitive thinking past wanting to feed. infact they are no more evil than an amoeba, just trying to feed and reproduce. granted they feed on brains, and they reproduce by infecting others insted of cell division....but hey players have to kill to make food and eat, does that make all players evil as well?
pungkow Oct 24th 2008 6:36PM
While you make a good point, I have to contend that zombies, at least scourge zombies, are in fact, evil. A non allied zombie, such as those you would see in zombie movies, may kill (and feed) for the sole purpose of staying alive. The scourge are controlled by an unarguably evil force (Arthas). Their purpose is destruction, pure and simple. Once you're a scourge zombie, your motive is not just to stay alive, but to destroy all that you can. In fact, the ability to explode in order to infect others suggests that staying alive isn't even high on the to do list of your every day scourge.
Balius Oct 24th 2008 7:51PM
By the same token, lacking a will of their own, you can't reasonably hold them responsible for their own actions. They are effectively marionettes, and any action they do can be placed directly at the feet of the Lich King.
You wouldn't, for instance, sentence a gun to death for the murders it was used for, or put the bullet itself on trial. These mindless undead are being used in the same way; they are DOING evil things, but necessarily can't be evil themselves unless they chose to become a zombie in the first place.