Werewolf attacks palace event - what does it do?

[cvlowe]

But, he is innocent in the sense that he didn't do anything wrong. Yes, he is involved in a situation that can/will cause his and other people's death, yes, he was unable to avoid danger, and yes he has become a liability, but he is still innocent.

Now that you have reminded me of the actual dilemma, let's see how it goes:

- Werewolves are chasing 4 fast guys and 1 slow guy
- The slow guy has no chance of surviving the situation any way you choose to act
- The fast guys will survive if you close the gate after them, and won't if you don't.

Conclusion: This is a false dilemma. The slow guy's life does not depend on your decision, only the fast guys' lives do. If you close the gate, you're good, if you don't you're evil or just plain stupid. So I agree with you, but on different grounds (I don't believe the slow guy deserves to die just because he's slow and becomes a liability).

You can not say he is or is not innocent. By claiming that, you're adding information that does not exist and changing the dilemma.

Maybe he was throwing rocks at the werewolf in his cage at the carnval, causing the werewolf to get angry and break out and chase him and his 5 faster friends. In which case most people would agree he deserves to be left outside. - just an example of how making up information changes the whole situation.

Kind of reminds me about those kids antagonizing a lion at a zoo causing it to escape its pen and chase them down! Unfortunately they killed the lion for that.

 

[PaleJackal]

You can not say he is or is not innocent. By claiming that, you're adding information that does not exist and changing the dilemma.

Actually, I think it's safe to say he is, for all intents and purposes, innocent.

The event is simply an ethical dilemma. If he becomes not innocent, because he was taunting a werewolf at the local zoo of supernatural creatures, then there ceases to be a dilemma. By saying, "Ah, he could have taunted the werewolf!" you're introducing an unreasonable possibility... if such a factor was related to the event, then it would have been mentioned. It's possible that the guards murdered a passing werewolf family, and this werewolf was merely taking revenge on some werewolf genocidists... maybe they ALL deserve to die, and so you shouldn't close the gate. But the event's wording and information leads any reasonable reader to assume that the werewolf is attacking innocent guardsmen.

Anyhow, I'm more concerned with consequences rather than principles, so I'd close the gate... unless I had reason to believe that the six men standing together had a roughly 86% chance of all surviving.

If I thought that there was a good chance of them all dying, then the slow (and innocent) man dies, but only because it leads to the greatest preservation of life, which is typically the 'greatest good.' (Unless they're werewolf genocidists, in which case, it might be bad.)

 

[PaleJackal]

I'd like to say, furthermore, maybe the five men who are ahead of the slow guard taunted the werewolf as the slow guard pleaded with them to stop antagonizing Old Man Headripper. By assuming his guilt, you're adding information to the event you don't reasonably have. Any scenario we conceive COULD be true, but we have to operate on certain assumptions. One of the assumptions, for example, is that the werewolf unjustly wants to kill the guardsmen.

Additionally, we need to look at the author's intent (and his intended assumptions for the event.) This is intended to be an ethical dilemma of 'are you willing to risk the good of the many for the good of the few?' Of course, it can be annoying when, in an RPG, certain (im)moralities are attributed to certain actions, and you think you were taking a different view from the author, but whatever. (Mass Effect, I'm looking at you!)

 

[cvlowe]

Actually, I think it's safe to say he is, for all intents and purposes, innocent.

The event is simply an ethical dilemma. If he becomes not innocent, because he was taunting a werewolf at the local zoo of supernatural creatures, then there ceases to be a dilemma. By saying, "Ah, he could have taunted the werewolf!" you're introducing an unreasonable possibility... if such a factor was related to the event, then it would have been mentioned. It's possible that the guards murdered a passing werewolf family, and this werewolf was merely taking revenge on some werewolf genocidists... maybe they ALL deserve to die, and so you shouldn't close the gate. But the event's wording and information leads any reasonable reader to assume that the werewolf is attacking innocent guardsmen.

Anyhow, I'm more concerned with consequences rather than principles, so I'd close the gate... unless I had reason to believe that the six men standing together had a roughly 86% chance of all surviving.

If I thought that there was a good chance of them all dying, then the slow (and innocent) man dies, but only because it leads to the greatest preservation of life, which is typically the 'greatest good.' (Unless they're werewolf genocidists, in which case, it might be bad.)

That was my point. Adding information that does not exist changes the whole scope of the dilemma. All we know is-

* A werewolf is chasing 6 people.
* We can close a gate and save 5, dooming one.
* if we leave the gate open the werewolf will pass up the one and kill the 5.

We don't know if any of the people are innocent or guilty. What if it was the 5 throwing rocks at the werewolf in a cage and the "slow" guy wasnt involved? The 5 ran past him and he turned around and saw a werewolf charging at him. He's just closer to the wolf, not necesarily slower.

Again thats adding information we don't know and changing the whole question. We don't know who- if any of them- are innocent or guilty so speculating on it is useless.

 

[PaleJackal]

Heh, alright then. I did the '5 men throwing rocks' thing as well in my next post.

I suppose my point is: they're all [basically] innocent, as far as you know. Innocent people are going to die, it's just a question of how many. I suppose my only contention would be that it's possible they could all survive if you keep the gate open. Then again, maybe not, since the event's second option explicitly states that you're doing it because you refuse to 'get your hands dirty' of sorts.

Sorry for ranting, then.

 

[cvlowe]

Heh, alright then. I did the '5 men throwing rocks' thing as well in my next post.

I suppose my point is: they're all [basically] innocent, as far as you know. Innocent people are going to die, it's just a question of how many. I suppose my only contention would be that it's possible they could all survive if you keep the gate open. Then again, maybe not, since the event's second option explicitly states that you're doing it because you refuse to 'get your hands dirty' of sorts.

Sorry for ranting, then.

My point was you don't know if they are innocent or guilty. All you know is either 1 or 5 *people* are going to die.

In that case, I would choose to spare the 5. If I knew other information about guilt/innocence I might change my mind. But again- all other factors being equal and being in the position of being forced to decide, I would choose the 5.

 

[renegadechicken]

So...to sum up, this is what the event does? Cause endless ethical discussions on the forums (not that there's anything wrong with that!)? I was hoping that it did something else...

 

[Honor]

So...to sum up, this is what the event does? Cause endless ethical discussions on the forums (not that there's anything wrong with that!)? I was hoping that it did something else...

Haha you is funny.

@cvlowe: The actual debate is whether "numbers" really mean anything as far as ethical principles are concerned.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Well, it is not as simple as numbers involved. It is also the way you do it.

After the gate version, there is the balcony version:

"5 People are chased by a werewolf. You are on a balcony and there is another person next to you. If you throw the person off the balcony, the werewolf will stop and the five people will escape. However, this will mean the death of the person you throw.

a)Throw the person off the balcony
b)Do nothing and let the 5 die"

 

[Ulysseslotro]

Your right, don't want to go off topic.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Ok here's another morale dilemma.

This thread is supposed to discuss the werewolf type events occuring in the game.
There are a lot of interesting morality-wise dilemmas that we can come up with, but bringing this or another type of such dilemas in the thread quickly drives it out of topic.

 

[notque]

This thread is supposed to discuss the werewolf type events occuring in the game.
There are a lot of interesting morality-wise dilemmas that we come up with, but bringing this or another type of such dilemas in the thread quickly drives it out of topic.

Yeah, how does that relate to the Nuremberg Trials?