Werewolf attacks palace event - what does it do?

Aha, so we come around to the war is necessary Ramos. The place we would eventually end up at and it is the cornerstone of the "things done in war are diffrent" arguement. This is also the place where i start to have a major psychotic problems.

You see, we decided some time aeons ago that war is necessary but in doing that we also made war far too easy to start. Dont you see that this idea is the very basis for starting wars? If we had not decided that war is necessary sometimes, there wouldnt be any wars! Now you will probably argue that sometimes war has to be done to stop certain people from commiting genocide, but when you look at it, isent Genocide kind of the same thing I am protesting against? The idea that massmurder is sometimes necessary.

Now we come down to the real reason why I have such a serious problem with the war is necessary arguement. You may know this but there is a lot of us and we are still becoming more at an alarming rate. Now, geografical theory says that population growth rises exponetially but the means to support population rises proportionately (dont even know if that is the right word). This means that eventually there will be a god-awefull mess of things, luckily we allready have the the most likely solutions: desease, famine, starvation and wars. The sooner we stop argueing that massmurder is necessary the better, because it will be a very tempting solution to all our problems. Hell, its allready started to some degree, the real arguement for going into Iraq was "they have oil, we need oil, therefore war is necessary". (Im sorry of dragging the U.S. into this again, but im also slapping my own country for supporting it.) You know us, you have seen how we solve our problems, we dont try to think of new ways to fix things, we build bombs.

Human nature sucks, lets try to change, we havent exactly tried real hard, now have we?

As i have now gone complety off the map offtopic, I will call it a night here and simply finish off with this.

In the evil event, I would draw upon my very own law of nature, the idea that causing harm, will result in more harm. Therefore I would do nothing, sure that would mean that the 5 people die, but it wouldnt be at my hands. That is all I can do.

Now you will probably argue that sometimes war has to be done to stop certain people from commiting genocide, but when you look at it, isent Genocide kind of the same thing I am protesting against? The idea that massmurder is sometimes necessary.

Click to expand...

Confused here. Stopping genocide is actually in opposition to your stated moral values? Inaction causes deaths, deaths you could have stopped. When you are capable of stopping more suffering through action, inaction is morally the same as pulling the trigger yourself.

Suppose you are in a restaurant. In comes an escaped psychotic. His back is turned to you as he prepares to spray the other side of the room with gunfire. You have a split second to make a decision. You can attempt to disable him, likely by injuring him seriously. Or you can remain in your booth. After all, he's not going to kill you. Do you remain where you are?

This is a microcosm of the issue of genocide. Examine the case of Rwanda, and see how "civilized" nations stood by as roughly 800,000 ethnic Tutsi were executed systematically by the Hutu majority. State officials were told to ignore reporters who asked questions, and to avoid the use of the word "genocide" at all costs. This was because if the general public heard of the conflict in terms of genocide, they might demand military intervention to stop it. In the end, the Tutsi RPF were able to stop the genocide only by conquering their own country, without any significant foreign intervention on either side.

To quote Edmund Burke:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Click to expand...

Now, geografical theory says that population growth rises exponetially but the means to support population rises proportionately

Click to expand...

I take it you are referencing the debunked theory of The Population Bomb? I assure you that the means to support our current population are nowhere near maxed, and are extremely unlikely to become so in the next millennium, let alone century. Name a resource, and I can name a solution. Better yet, I can reference real scientists and inventions that solve the issue.

the real arguement for going into Iraq was "they have oil, we need oil, therefore war is necessary".

Click to expand...

Not touching this with a ten-foot poll. But I strongly suggest that you actually do research for your next post rather than just spout pure ideology. It may not convince anyone, but it makes your base argument a lot more palatable and approachable than a bunch of un-backed absolutes.

Confused here. Stopping genocide is actually in opposition to your stated moral values? Inaction causes deaths, deaths you could have stopped. When you are capable of stopping more suffering through action, inaction is morally the same as pulling the trigger yourself.

Suppose you are in a restaurant. In comes an escaped psychotic. His back is turned to you as he prepares to spray the other side of the room with gunfire. You have a split second to make a decision. You can attempt to disable him, likely by injuring him seriously. Or you can remain in your booth. After all, he's not going to kill you. Do you remain where you are?

This is a microcosm of the issue of genocide. Examine the case of Rwanda, and see how "civilized" nations stood by as roughly 800,000 ethnic Tutsi were executed systematically by the Hutu majority. State officials were told to ignore reporters who asked questions, and to avoid the use of the word "genocide" at all costs. This was because if the general public heard of the conflict in terms of genocide, they might demand military intervention to stop it. In the end, the Tutsi RPF were able to stop the genocide only by conquering their own country, without any significant foreign intervention on either side.

Click to expand...

HadesScorn, seriously read all my posts. Now i will have to repeat myself, any harm caused to people who are deliberatly trying to cause suffering to other people is an effect of their own actions. Therefore clearly im agreeing with the fact that inaction is wrong but for that particular reason, I never said anything else.

Im getting a little sick of people pulling situations that doesnt fit what we are talking about. Your restaurant example has the exact same problem as that silly wife example.

So 1 terrorist is threatening to kill 5 people if you dont kill 1. Pure and simple, 5 people for the price of 1. Anyone can do the math 5-1=4 but I would still choose to not kill the 1 person, not because inaction is better than action, but because I believe that any action of violence causes an equal reaction. My action to kill 1 person would cause more deaths because i would be allowing violence to be a part of me and of the world.

I guess you would first have to accept that there is violence in the world because we are violent by nature and that there is nothing you can do to stop it but I refuse to accept that. I suppose that makes me somewhat of an utopian dreamer.

I have read them. I'm just in disbelief on your stance. And you've clarified it for me, you'd refuse to act. Fundamental disconnect between our viewpoints in this case.

On the event: I would actually point out that the good event "feels easier" to sacrifice the man because you are acting through a machine (the portcullis), whereas in the evil scenario, you are killing the man with your own hands. Therefore, in the good scenario, you are of the impression that what you do must necessarily be good, but has a bad bi-effect, whereas in the evil scenario, you do something that is evil (killing someone) with the bi-effect that it saves the others. Therefore, I would deem it easier to sacrifice the man in the good scenario.

The only time where I did not sacrifice was when playing Lanun, FoL. I believe the neutrality of FoL would prevent me from actively killing a person.

Perspectiavting this situation to real life: Impossible. Who are the persons? How well do I know them? Is it my wife/brother I push to death? Am I sure that the man will distract the werewolf (and that the five others will escape)? Am I even capable of pushing the man down? Will he drag me with him? Will the five men know I saved them? Will they know I murdered someone else? Will the man on balcony know that I saved people by pushing him? Will he know that someone else died because I didn't?

Aaaah hell i didnt want to post again but I do have one more little pearl to give.

Look at it in revers; by not throwing the guy off the balcony would you be killing the 5 people? I dont believe so. The thing is, I dont think the solution of tossing one guy off the balcony would even occur to me in that situation. Then again, had it been a diffrent event but the same dilemma...

If I was an evil leader, I think I'd just order the guy to jump. Why do the deed myself?
Or tell him that he should and leave cackling, like KillerClown said

A couple of things that make me question the premise that it was necessary for Truman to use the bomb:

1. Back in July, Japan had already offered unconditional surrender with the exception that it be allowed to retain its monarchy.

2. The relentless firebombing had already taken more civilian lives than the A bombs.

3. If dropping an A bomb was to make a point, it would seem unnecessary to drop two.

Caradoc, I can't say anything about 1 or 2 (and won't either), but I know that 3 was done on the following reasoning:

If we attack with our most powerful weapon, we must make sure the enemy does not consider it a "last struggle"-effort. The impression that USA gave the Japanese by being able to throw two of these devastating bombs convinced the Japanese that further resistance would be suicide, and thus gave in to the unconditional surrender.

"Murder as defined in Common Law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide."

"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). "

"1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

All definitions of murder that center around the top 4 definitions of the word, it's not until you go to #5, and only in a non-standard dictionary that you get

"5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously"

Which still doesn't quite fit into what you all are talking about. That brings up a whole bunch of caveats. You really ought to think about the words that you are utilizing when you're bringing up the moral discussion. It's really easy to trigger someone's gut response to the word 'murder' when you throw it around, but there's no murder going on here, by just about every definition of the word murder.

Nearly every definition includes the lawfulness of the term murder, and if you trace it to its Norse origins, it was still the unlawful killing of someone. You were allowed to kill someone in response to certain actions, and that wasn't murder.

Anything and everything having to do with the portcullis or pushing the person off the wall, blah blah, none of this is murder. The idea that you *are* the law in your kingdom was discussed earlier, but kind of glossed over. This isn't really a democracy, this is at best a monarchy, and at worst a tyrannical dictatorship. In a democracy, the 'president' certainly isn't above the law, but (especially if you choose the God King civic!) the king definitely is. There's no magna carta as far as I know, in the FfH world, it's a dark fantasy world, being a peasant or a soldier in this world sucks.

Thanks for setting that straight Keyeth. I think if this was a judicial discussion, the definition would be important. I fail to see how it is really relavent to a discussion about morality. If it makes you feel better we could just replace "murder" with "killing of an innocent", I dont know if that makes it any better.

I dont know either if tossing a person at a werewolf, like a big human chewtoy, who will then be torn apart and eaten constitutes as "5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously". Id say its a close call.

But the way they die is hardly relavent either.

Right, Im going to try really hard not to reply to this thread anymore.

MetalMilitia- said:

Look at it in revers; by not throwing the guy off the balcony would you be killing the 5 people? I dont believe so.

Click to expand...

By not acting, you are choosing to take an action which leads to the result that five people die.

You can say that you didn't kill them, because you didn't actively cause it. But the universe doesn't care about such distinctions. The end result is that more people are dead than would have been otherwise. "But I didn't kill them" isn't going to be of any comfort to their friends or their loved ones or them.

Any human talk about murdering or not murdering is just that, human talk. The outcome is the only thing that matters in the end.

Thanks for setting that straight Keyeth. I think if this was a judicial discussion, the definition would be important. I fail to see how it is really relavent to a discussion about morality.

Click to expand...

A) Your scathing sarcasm is totally destructive, instead of constructive. Nowhere in my post was I at all anything other than sincere in what I said.

B) Definitions are always important. How can you have a remotely meaningful discussion without definitions? You can't just go throwing words around without definitions, because they have emotional weight to them, and then you're not even arguing, you're just using shock value and emotion to prove your point, which isn't really appropriate.

C) 'killing an innocent' is another example of exactly what I'm talking about. You throw around terms like 'innocent' because innocent is a word that plays with peoples' hearts. You're acting without all the variables, you don't know if the guy is innocent or not. The guy is merely someone you know nothing about. That's a different story.

Acting on 'killing an innocent' and acting on 'killing someone you know nothing about' are two entirely different situations.

D) The entire purpose of my putting the "5:" definition there was because what you said DID fit into there. Again, totally unnecessary sarcasm that is totally not constructive nor conducive to a logical argument. More emotions getting involved, I think we both know that's not very helpful. My point was that it took several dictionaries to even find a definition that fit, and even then it was the 5th most popular definition, which isn't particularly high. People throw the word 'murder' around because they know people will have an instinctual response to it, even when it's not the appropriate term for the situation.

I can't stress enough the importance of definitions. I'm a little shocked that you could so blithely just wave the definition of the term off, and with such complete disregard for courtesy with all of the sarcasm your post is laced with. To think you're the one arguing about morality here.

Personally, I would shut the portcullis after the majority got through - saving more being ripped to bits - and get an archer to put the last out of his misery in case the werewolf plays with him (if one is available).

About pushing the guy off the roof, I wouldnt do that (thats just wrong). I would rather support my fellows down there by putting them out of their misery with an arrow or two - a quick death is better than a prolonged one - but only if the beast plays with them.

As for the nuke issue: Japan knew it would lose the war. If you HAD to drop the bomb, I personally would need inreputeable evidence of a heavy loss of soldiers lives from invasion. Bombing an island nearby within sight of the mainland with stuff all loss of life would have been a better option, so that the Japanese could survey the damage after, and watch the devastating mushroom. It could then follow up by a threat that you would bomb a city (and giving them time to evacuate). A third bomb would then be dropped over a city later with no warning if they did not surrender (thus time between the bombings to mill over surrender). As for the war, its justification is always decided by the winner. Isn't it ironic that the Japanese were trialed for War Crimes, while yet no one was trialed for dropping NUKES?

MetalMilitia- said:

HadesScorn, seriously read all my posts. Now i will have to repeat myself, any harm caused to people who are deliberatly trying to cause suffering to other people is an effect of their own actions. Therefore clearly im agreeing with the fact that inaction is wrong but for that particular reason, I never said anything else.

Im getting a little sick of people pulling situations that doesnt fit what we are talking about. Your restaurant example has the exact same problem as that silly wife example.

So 1 terrorist is threatening to kill 5 people if you dont kill 1. Pure and simple, 5 people for the price of 1. Anyone can do the math 5-1=4 but I would still choose to not kill the 1 person, not because inaction is better than action, but because I believe that any action of violence causes an equal reaction. My action to kill 1 person would cause more deaths because i would be allowing violence to be a part of me and of the world.

I guess you would first have to accept that there is violence in the world because we are violent by nature and that there is nothing you can do to stop it but I refuse to accept that. I suppose that makes me somewhat of an utopian dreamer.

Click to expand...

Now this brings up a completely interesting point. You have, and I know I'm paraphrasing here, a utopian view on how people are. You say that killing one person to save four others would be a violent action that would cause other violent action. You also say you refuse to accept that violence is a part of our nature.

Yet here you are, posting in the forums for a computer game, the base of which simulates world history (which is filled with violent actions) and the mod of which simulates a fantasy world (which centers around a violent history and possibly even more evil and violence than are in the real world. So you deny violence in human nature in the real world but you let out you own violent tendencies in a simulated world. Now there is the possibility that you never build any of the military units in the game but I very seriously doubt that.

By playing Civ 4 and FfH 2, or any other game in which violence occurs, you are accepting the violent nature of humanity and living it out ever time you build a military unit and attack another unit with it.

Now it's one thing to deny that violence is in human nature, it's another thing to accept that fact but believe we can change it. I know humans are violent, but I believe with the right motivation and education, we will change that some day. For now though, violence will occur no matter what you do. You can choose not to be violent in your everyday life, but at times, violence is required.

In the situation with the terrorist, I would accept his demand, take the gun and hope that I'm fast enough to turn and shoot him before I am killed by him or his friends, if he has them in that situation.

The world we live in is violent and it is an unfortunate part of human nature. That is a fact that connot be denied. The fact that violent games exist and are more popular than any other type of game is proof. The fact that war, murder and fighting exist is proof. Humans have a need to be first, to be the top dog so to speak, because of our evolutionary history. Now that we are more intelligent, other methods have been developed and will continue to develope, but it is a slow process.

@ Keyeth

I think you misunderstand what the defenition is saying.

Keyeth said:

"Murder as defined in Common Law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide."

Click to expand...

The bold area is the main point. If you kill someone with intent, you are murdering them. By pushing the man off the wall, you are intending to kill him to save the five other men. By closing the portcullis, your intent is to save the five men, the death of the other man is an unfortunate side effect of that.

Even despite that just replace murder with kill, and the results are still the same. Whether you murder or kill somebody, it can still be morally wrong depending on the situation and the view of the people involved.

@ranos, so by commiting acts of violence in a simulation I accept human nature as violent? come on get real man, thats the silliest thing ihve heard all day. I can prove it, as easy as pie. I am not a violent person because I play computer games. I am about as violent as a box of bunnies, but i do love to play the evil-doer and I am damn good at it. Simulated evil bastard right here. The very idea of a simulation is that you can go somewhere else and in this case be free of your own morals.

Ok, let me rephrase my statement that human beings are not violent by nature, it was a bit hastily written, quite frankly, I dont know that but I know we dont have to be. Hell, by nature we would . .. .. .. . in the forest, yet most people would prefer a toilet.

What you mentioned about the terrorist, you know very well that is not on the table, otherwise we could discuss possible solutions till the cows come home.

Oh and we are about as intelligent as we were millions of years ago, our civilization hasnt grown to were it is now because we got any smarter. We have built up knowledge over the generations and that makes us advanced, the ability to pass on knowledge to future generations. We are still as stupid as we allways were, evolutions does come pretty slow.

Keyeth, I am sorry if i came off sarcastic, that was not my intent, I did find your use of judicial terms pretty laughable. Sorry but they are. My reason for saying this is that some laws go against morality. Example: Is it moral to allow people to have leathal weapons? Studies have shown that guns do kill more people than they save.

Definitions are very important, but the judicial definition of murder has no relevance to right and wrong. If you feel the need to point out the definition of what murder is because i used the word wrongly then I apologise, I use the worlds that come to me, I could just as easily have used the word "kill" for the desired effect. English is not my first language and i probably wouldnt have used the same phrase in my own language.

And on the innocent part, since you are so keen on using law terms, here is an arguement you might like: innocent until proven guilty. You are right we dont know anything about these persons, but dont we have to assume that they are innocent? I really dont see a problem in using the word innocent about these victims.

Please dont take the last part of my previous post as directed at you, I really had other things I shouldve been doing instead of responding to this thread.

I dislike the use of words like 'innocent' 'victim' and 'murder' because these words *are* law terms. That is to say, they didn't exist until law put them into use. So it's not that I'm using the 'law' definition for the words, I'm just using the etymological one. I'm not particularly keen on using so-called 'law' definitions when I'm talking about morals or anything like that, but there are certain words that carry certain kinds of weight when you're talking morals.

I think when you're discussing something that difficult to discuss that you need to find a common set of terms to use that don't carry any emotional weight to them. 'murdering innocent victims' is a very emotional phrase, I think we can both agree on that. But 'victim' 'murder' and 'innocent' all carry the weight of law into the room with them, and thus are separate from moral discussion entirely (and I think we can both agree that generally speaking laws, whether moral or not, are for the stability of the societies we live in, rather than for what is moral in one person's eyes).

There are too many caveats when talking about all of these moral discussions, and that's why they get so heated. I mean think about it, if someone waltzed into this argument saying

"Man I'd kill the . .. .. .. . out of them . .. .. .. .. .es."

You'd probably take that just a bit less seriously, because of the connotative language used there. It's the same thing when you say

"You are murdering innocent victims."

Because those words have very strong connotative meanings attached to them. It's almost like hedging your argument, if you know what I mean. Sort of a "How can anyone disagree when I called them innocent victims, and when I called it murder? That must mean you're a BAD person!" and so on. But if you want to sway someone to your side, then you're just going to alienate them by speaking in the language of your personal moral code, instead of a more neutral one of argumentation.

I don't mean to get on your case, or anyone's really, it's just that these debates over morality tend to devolve into terms like these that pigeonhole people into admitting things that aren't necessarily true. I just want things to remain level.. Or.. As level as they can be, and be more conducive to constructive debate.

Forgive me if someone stated this already, but i have not read the entire thread(its a little too weighty) and my searches found nothing in it.

in my current game, keelyn, evil. i got this event, i chose to push some shmoe off the ledge to save the 5 and my AC went from 28 percent to 31. i reloaded twice and ended my turn, obviously i didn't get the event again, and the AC stayed at 28(97 out of 335 i think). its highly unlikely anything else could have been responsible for such a large jump(it would have taken a few razed cities, huge map 18 civs) that wouldn't have occured atleast in part on one of the other two tries. so it *seems* like atleast one choice will raise the AC.

again, my apologies if someone mentioned this already,

MetalMilitia- said:

@ranos, so by commiting acts of violence in a simulation I accept human nature as violent? come on get real man, thats the silliest thing ihve heard all day. I can prove it, as easy as pie. I am not a violent person because I play computer games. I am about as violent as a box of bunnies, but i do love to play the evil-doer and I am damn good at it. Simulated evil bastard right here. The very idea of a simulation is that you can go somewhere else and in this case be free of your own morals.

Click to expand...

What I said is exactly right. All people have violent tendencies. Some people yell whether at someone else your to noone just to get the anger (the root of violent tendencies) out. Some people hit, kick, etc. other people (violence without any sort of weapon). Some people use weapons from an object that is available to guns and knives. Some of those are with the intent only to injure, but most probably with the intent to kill. Some people join the military and take their anger out by shooting guns or using some other weapon, sometimes on other people. Still other people use martial arts to control and focus their anger. Then of course there are people like me who use video games to release the anger.

Your last sentence actually seems to prove my point. You have all of these morals about harming anyone. You basically control your violent nature in the real world. You then go home and set your morals aside (allow your violent nature to come out) and kill a bunch of things in a video game.

MetalMilitia- said:

Ok, let me rephrase my statement that human beings are not violent by nature, it was a bit hastily written, quite frankly, I dont know that but I know we dont have to be. Hell, by nature we would . .. .. .. . in the forest, yet most people would prefer a toilet.

Click to expand...

By nature we have to . .. .. .. ., but where we do it is by choice. Dogs sniff around to find just the right spot but they have to be trained to do it outside, not on the livingroom carpet. Cats go in the litter box, usually with very little training, and then proceed to bury it. Nature dictates we must do it. We get to decide where.

MetalMilitia- said:

What you mentioned about the terrorist, you know very well that is not on the table, otherwise we could discuss possible solutions till the cows come home.

Click to expand...

Fine I'd pick one of the five people and shoot them to save the others. While I may have, by definition, murdered that one person, by doing nothing, I would have murdered all five in my own eyes.

@ Keyeth

Killing is the broad term used to cover all death caused by another living creature or even inanimate objects. Murder is a specific term to define the killing of a person with the intention for that specific person to die. Murder is also a term that can be viewed differently by different people. Words and definitions change over time. A word that meant one thing a hundred years ago may actually mean something different today.

As I said in a paragraph above, my inaction to save someone, while not defined as murder, would be murder in my eyes. There is enough of a conversation going on here that is ranging further and further off topic that we don't need to worry about whether we are using a word in it's proper form based on the exact definition of the word.

@ Kael

If you're still reading this thread, I'm still hoping to get confirmation that the two events mentioned in this thread don't actually have any effect on gameplay, that they are just there for fun. If I don't get a response soon, I'm going to assume you are a sadistic bastard that just wants us to figure out the moral implication of putting a morally based event in the game that may or may not do anything iwthout actually informing the players either way.

Given the fact that the main topic seems to have been discussed and debated about to a fairly decent conclusion, unless Kael posts a response or somebody else posts something relevent to the main topic, I'm going to bring my contribution to this interesting off topic debate to an end.

Inkling said:

Forgive me if someone stated this already, but i have not read the entire thread(its a little too weighty) and my searches found nothing in it.

in my current game, keelyn, evil. i got this event, i chose to push some shmoe off the ledge to save the 5 and my AC went from 28 percent to 31. i reloaded twice and ended my turn, obviously i didn't get the event again, and the AC stayed at 28(97 out of 335 i think). its highly unlikely anything else could have been responsible for such a large jump(it would have taken a few razed cities, huge map 18 civs) that wouldn't have occured atleast in part on one of the other two tries. so it *seems* like atleast one choice will raise the AC.

again, my apologies if someone mentioned this already,

Click to expand...

Lol, and while I'm writing my previous post, somebody actually went and posted something new that's relevent to the main topic.

Usually, if you restart the same turn an event occurred on, it will give you the same exact event. So for future reference, if the event occurs on turn 200, you would want to load an autosave from turn 200, not turn 199.

Thanks for the new info though. I may not have paid attention to the AC when I was testing out when I got the event.