WWYCD 101:A question of faith

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

I'm honestly appalled at how many players seem to think this would be OK as long as the sacrificial victim is OK with it.

 

I think the situation as described is horrible--but my characters are different. And a couple were pretty heavt bronze/iron agish. Oddly enough, the closest one to four color ethics is Demon.

 

....hmmm, I think that means I'm pretty messed up.

[Zeropoint]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

I'm honestly appalled at how many players seem to think this would be OK as long as the sacrificial victim is OK with it.

 

I'd guess it's because self-sacrifice for the greater good is considered one of the highest virtues to which a person can aspire.

 

There is a question of whether the victim really wants it, or is just conforming to social pressures so thoroughly that he/she has pushed his/her desire to live down to a more-or-less subconscious level.

 

In any case:

 

Special Agent Trent wouldn't like it one bit, and would definitely rescue the victim if he or she wanted to live. If not . . . well, this is one of those times when "the law" and "justice" happen not to be on the same side. Much internal conflict ensues.

 

He'd probably leave, so he didn't have to watch it happen and wind up interfering, but I'm not really sure. I'd have to play this out.

 

Zeropoint

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

I don't care if it's clad in pilotically correct clothing and somebody quotes the Prime Directive: It's wrong; and it should be stopped.

So the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

 

Since you brought up the Prime Directive, what would have done in Conselor Troi's no-win situation?

 

Reactor breech. Engineering has lethal radiation levels. Reactor going critical, will explode and kill everyone on the ship if not shut down. Remotes are damaged. Would be possible to shut the reactor down by hand, but anyone doing so will receive a lethal radiation exposure. There are no volunteers. One person dies, or everyone dies. You are in command. Will you order someone to their certain death to shut down the reactor, or kill everyone you are responsible for by failing to give the order? Saying you would do it yourself is cheating, changing the paramiters of the problem ("There are no volunteers"), answer as asked or not at all please.

[Zeropoint]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Duh. This is a no-brainer. The person you pick is already going to die; there's no way around it. They do, however, have a chance not to take everyone else with them. Obviously, you send them in.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Duh. This is a no-brainer. The person you pick is already going to die; there's no way around it. They do' date=' however, have a chance not to take everyone else with them. Obviously, you send them in.[/quote']

So would I. In fact, depending on just when the reactor would blow and how long it took the radiation to kill them, they might even live longer by going in to the radiation. But I wonder if Treb would?

[Zeropoint]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

So would I. In fact, depending on just when the reactor would blow and how long it took the radiation to kill them, they might even live longer by going in to the radiation. But I wonder if Treb would?

 

Oh, sorry. Didn't realize you were directing that to a specific person.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Oh' date=' sorry. Didn't realize you were directing that to a specific person.[/quote']

That's why it's here instead of a new thread. Treb has said it is not only immoral for a person to sacrifice themselves for their community, but immoral for our characters to ALLOW them to do so, or fail to prevent BY FORCE them from doing so. So I'm wondering if he would feel the same way in a simular situation divorced from religion.

[DataPacRat]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

If I was the GM of that situation' date=' the giggles turning into evil maniacal laughter would stop the game for five minutes. I'd hug the player for doing it, then have my fun [/quote']

 

Okay, since you put it that way - exactly what fun /would/ you have with poor, resurrected Bunny?

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Okay' date=' since you put it that way - exactly what fun /would/ you have with poor, resurrected [b']Bunny[/b]?

 

 

Well, depending on what you say--its amazing how fast a new faith can take a idle comment the wrong way..and go really wild with it. Those who dare offend the new chosen ocould wiind up in the sacrificial pit waiting for you. Yeah, I know you said no to that--but that was sacrifices to help the land. These sacrifices are for YOU oh chosen one!

 

Being an object of worship could get REALLY old.

 

The Volcano is erupting--but we need not flee! Bunny will stop it!

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

One possibility for Bunny would be to ask what method the sacrifice employed - and if it was something her nanites could heal her from (garrotting, chest-knifing, or something else simple), she'd volunteer to /be/ the sacrifice.

 

And then, after all the proper forms were fulfilled and she was officially "dead", she'd get up from the tomb and attempt a little creative myth-making about her being the /last/ sacrifice, based on certain mystery cults from Earth's own past (Osiris, Orpheus, Asclepius, and all those other dead-and-revived fellows)...

 

One problem: the sacrifice must be a virgin and none of the characters in her game qualify.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

One problem: the sacrifice must be a virgin and none of the characters in her game qualify.

Millennium quietly backs toward the door.

[Pyre-Archer]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Pyre Archer would do a -lot- of research (being a librarian in his non-powered state), figure out what/who was responsible, then start arguing with the elders. He's mystically sensitive, so if there are any supernatural baddies influencing the ceremony, he'd go after them.

 

If it's technically-driven, then it's big club on the microprocessor time.

 

Interesting dilemma: In stopping a human sacrifice, is it okay to kill? And is it better to be amoral and a virgin, or decent and...er...experienced.

 

Pyre-Archer

-There's rubbing blue mud in your navel, then there's just being silly.

[DataPacRat]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

One problem: the sacrifice must be a virgin and none of the characters in her game qualify.

 

Well, she'd never have done anything to disqualify herself while on /this/ Earth - and if it'll save the sacrificee's life (and that of future sacrificees), she's perfectly willing to fail to mention anything she might have done on any /other/ Earth.

 

Besides, it's an SF trope that prophets get to make up their own rules on the subject - see Michael from "Stranger in a Strange Land", for one example.

 

 

Another potential complication might be that her limbs are removable cybernetics - and, of course, those people who expect her to save them from a volcano will also expect her body to be perfect as it is without need of such "mortal disguises" - leaving her literally trapped on a pedestal. If anybody expressed a wish to imitate her appearance in this way, along the lines of a priest of Odin removing an eye, she'd put a stop to it as quickly as possible - if she had any say on the matter. I'm starting to have some strange thoughts about her ending up as a "deity" who has no input into what her church does in her name, which is usually where the PCs come /into/ things (anybody recall Llandru?)... hopefully, it'll be in the near future, and not after she'd been sitting in that temple for a few thousand years. (Of course, even if it is, the version of Bunny I use for WWYCDs is after the campaign Nexus is referring to, when she's had some experience with time travel...)

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Yes, I do. The former is a wrong perpetrated by the cociety as a whole; the latter is a wrong perpetrated by a portion of that society. They're still both wrongs no matter how it gets dressed up in approval by those supposedly benefitting from it. The agreement of the sacrifice is irrelevant. I don't care if it's clad in pilotically correct clothing and somebody quotes the Prime Directive: It's wrong; and it should be stopped.

 

This is selfish and evil behavior by the society in question; and I'd oppose this just as I would societally condoned judicial rape, slavery, or ritual murders of gay people or witches. This is not a neutral issue; failure to oppose evil is evil. It may not always be possible to openly oppose evildoing; but that was explicitly not the case with this WWYCD scenario. The player characters have the ability to stop the sacrifice; so not to do so means they are not acting heroically. Period.

 

I'm honestly appalled at how many players seem to think this would be OK as long as the sacrificial victim is OK with it.

 

So... self sacrifice for any reason is evil and should be stopped?

 

It's only evil if it's expected of them?

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Well, she'd never have done anything to disqualify herself while on /this/ Earth - and if it'll save the sacrificee's life (and that of future sacrificees), she's perfectly willing to fail to mention anything she might have done on any /other/ Earth.

 

I think the state transfers across dimensions. Its like being pregnant. You are or you aren't. Yes, I know you can lie about it but its fun to give some one hard time

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Personally' date=' I find it a little frightening that you, not only your character, are so willing to prevent by force someone preforming what they consider to be a religious duty/obligation.[/quote']Really? And if the "religious duty/obligation" I was trying to prevent was the killing of gay people would that still be frightening to you? There are real religious sects on OUR planet that consider crushing homosexuals to death under stone walls to be their solemn religious duty. So if I oppose that I'm being frightful?

 

Suppose the original scenario of this thread postulated that the victim must be a gay man or woman; and could only be selected from amongst the small available pool of homosexuals rather than the entire population? Every other aspect is the same; including the voluntary aspects by the victim and the immense social pressure to comply. Would that make it right? Is it still OK; or am I just imposing my oppressive Western values on these poor Noble Savages?

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Really? And if the "religious duty/obligation" I was trying to prevent was the killing of gay people would that still be frightening to you? There are real religious sects on OUR planet that consider crushing homosexuals to death under stone walls to be their solemn religious duty. So if I oppose that I'm being frightful?

Difference between a willing sacrifice and murdering someone.

 

Suppose the original scenario of this thread postulated that the victim must be a gay man or woman; and could only be selected from amongst the small available pool of homosexuals rather than the entire population? Every other aspect is the same; including the voluntary aspects by the victim and the immense social pressure to comply. Would that make it right? Is it still OK; or am I just imposing my oppressive Western values on these poor Noble Savages?

Changes nothing.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

So... self sacrifice for any reason is evil and should be stopped?

It's not self sacrifice; it's human sacrifice.

 

It's only evil if it's expected of them?

No, it's evil when it's wrong. This scenario perfectly illustrates what is wrong with moral relativism and political correctness run amok. "See? These nice Noble Savages offer up a human sacrifice annually as part of their religion! Who are we to interfere?" And if it was just like the scenario posed except the "native religion" in question was christianity; or the sacrifice demanded was a 4 year old child, or a virgin girl volunteering to be ritually raped to death, would that somehow be all right too?

[input.jack]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Revenant, in this situation, would toss down a smoke-bomb, grab the sacrifice (willing or not), clout the Priest on the jaw, and skeedaddle. Then he would take however long it took to apprehend and restrain every adult participant in this ritual, and either cart them off to the authorities, or if they -are- the authorities in the area, hed burn their temple to the ground, smash their alter, and tell them they have to WORK for their paradise now. Hed also check up on them frequently to make sure they didnt try it again. If they managed to overpower and kill him, (unlikely), he would return on the next full moon, and continue what he was doing. For as long as it takes.

 

BlackHawk would try to get all the young men and women together for an underground party where the old folks cant find them, to arrange it so that by the time of the sacrifice, they were fresh outta virgins ;D

 

 

(W)hat would (you) have done in Conselor Troi's no-win situation?

 

Reactor breech. Engineering has lethal radiation levels. Reactor going critical, will explode and kill everyone on the ship if not shut down. Remotes are damaged. Would be possible to shut the reactor down by hand, but anyone doing so will receive a lethal radiation exposure. There are no volunteers. One person dies, or everyone dies. You are in command. Will you order someone to their certain death to shut down the reactor, or kill everyone you are responsible for by failing to give the order? Saying you would do it yourself is cheating, changing the paramiters of the problem ("There are no volunteers"), answer as asked or not at all please.

 

The test is flawed. If someone is in a command position, then there are only two alternatives if no one volunteers. One is to order someone to their death. Doesnt matter who. The other is to do it yourself.

 

Those are the ONLY two choices. The test having parameter of the commanding officer refusing to volunteer makes that commander unworthy of command. Not because he should volunteer, but because if he is unwilling to even consider it as an option then he is unworthy to lead others.

 

Most superhero types would do it themselves. Most military commanders would have to decide who among the crew was most expendable, and order that person to do it.

 

Im not saying the military outlook is unethical; quite the contrary. But superheroes are accustomed to making their own decisions and being the only ones accountable for them. Military commanders are trained to analyze the situation logically, and in that situation, what you need is someone to go in and flip the switch. It doesnt take alot of training of skill to do that, and the commanding officer represents a great deal of invested time and training on the part of the organization, and therefore is considered one of the least expendable people on the ship. For the commanding officer to do it himself can actually be considered -irresponsible- of him, especially if there are other threats to the ship nearby. But a worthy commanding officer would at least have considered it as a possibility.

 

By the way, I have had to make exactly this kind of command decision in-game during a few Star Trek type games. Its not fun.

 

 

On the other hand, regardless of the villagers seeing the sacrifice of one of their youths as a "religious obligation", what they are doing, willing sacrifice or not, is inherently evil. Just as it was considered the "religious obligation" of the Aztecs to tear the still-beating hearts out of tens of thousands of people to "sanctify" a new temple. Evil is evil, regardless of the clothing it wears, and the murder of innocents for the purpose of furthering of your own comfort is evil.

 

The difference between self sacrifice and human sacrifice is this. Self sacrifice occurs when there is a real, imminent danger that threatens death or grievious harm to the group, and one of hte group makes the conscious decision to take the brunt of it to spare the rest from having to. Human sacrifice is the murder of one person by the group because they are afraid of what might happen if they dont, without tangible evidence to back that fear up.

 

Even -with- tangible evidence of the need for a sacrifice (like a local dragon who stops by annually for a "bride"), the practice is immoral and evil. If youve got a dragon demanding tribute, you either hire adventurers to kill the dragon, or you move. If its a case like the Greeks having to sent ten young boys and girls to the Cretans every year as tribute, with the threat of the Cretans crushing the Greeks if they dont, its more udnerstandable on the aprt of the Greeks, but its still evil and morally wrong (though the burden of this rests on the people of Crete, in this case).

 

If a stronger fore compells a sacrifice, then they are evil and must be stopped. If your own people compel the sacrifice, -especially- for something as self-serving as "maintaining paradise", then YOU are evil and must be stopped.

 

Good and evil are not subject to relativism. And upholding good is very, very hard.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Most military commanders would have to decide who among the crew was most expendable' date=' and order that person to do it. [/quote']

 

Or most capable of completing the task, which would be another point (let's face it - the Thing might have actually been able to survive the reactor radiation, but I really don't think he'd be able to fix it so that it wouldn't still explode. Presumably, we're not talking about a "press the shiny button that says 'save everybody but me'" situation.)

 

On the other hand, regardless of the villagers seeing the sacrifice of one of their youths as a "religious obligation", what they are doing, willing sacrifice or not, is inherently evil. Just as it was considered the "religious obligation" of the Aztecs to tear the still-beating hearts out of tens of thousands of people to "sanctify" a new temple. Evil is evil, regardless of the clothing it wears, and the murder of innocents for the purpose of furthering of your own comfort is evil.

 

An argument I've heard before, often one that fails when a few more tidbits about the Aztecs were known (namely, that being a human sacrifice was a one-way ticket to absolute paradise, and while not actively sought after as a status, certainly wasn't considered a bad thing. You furthered the society that you lived in, ensured the continued survival of your people, and ended up in their version of heaven... not a half-bad deal, from their perspective.)

 

Some tidbits on the Aztec approach to human sacrifice - which isn't all that far from what we see here - can be found at the following links:

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/27981/beliefs.html

http://www.experiencefestival.com/aztec_mythology

 

Though I preferred a program History Channel did on the Aztecs and their infamous '20,000 sacrifices in one day' ritual, done in honor of the arrival of the Spanish (out of curiosity - are the actions of the Spaniards in question, wiping out the Aztecs and largely enslaving the remaining locals, made morally sound by the fact that they were fighting 'evil' human sacrificers?)

 

In this case, the people are (from the sound of it) volunteers, who agree to do this in order to get a last year of incredibly good treatment, and to continue their people's paradise. They can choose to leave, even if they might not choose to do so because of social pressures (though, on that front, how many people have chosen to do/not do something healthy for them on the basis of social pressures throughout history?)

 

Keep in mind what we were told up front - they aren't restrained and nobody tries to stop them from leaving. There's the social pressure, but there aren't any armed guards, there aren't any people fighting to keep this person from leaving at any point. And, if they did leave, there'd be another person to replace them, most likely. This *is* self-sacrifice, as they are making their *own* choice to sacrifice *themselves* for the perceived good of their loved ones and friends.

 

And I'm not going to go into the question of absolute good/evil here, at least not in depth - just going to agree to disagree on that front, or I'll be booted so fast it won't be funny. Suffice it to say I tend to disagree strongly.

 

At any rate, back on the subject of what various characters would do in this situation:

 

Weather Witch: Start feeling mildly nauseous, but probably go along with it so long as the people involved really *were* willing to accept it. Of course, if they were having second thoughts, that's when he'd start putting in the 'make it look like the gods aren't happy' actions - being able to control the weather in your localized area can be handy sometimes, and making it look like a person is an unsuitable sacrifice can cut down on that social pressure issue.

 

Darkchild: Get the name of whatever divine being is supposed to be behind this, and go have some words with him/her about whether or not this is *really* what they wanted... and if it wasn't, grab 'em by the ear and haul them down to explain that. If it was, check on why, and probably go along with it. Stop the others from interfering, probably involving a lengthy discussion of the other, arguably far more egregious flaws in various local faiths that they don't really have any problems with.

 

Void: Start twitching and probably reboot his moral stance some time *after* the ritual, assuming it didn't result in him running out of ammo about half-way through the village and being lynched by the rest of it.

 

Infierna: Much like Darkchild, make sure there wasn't anything actively evil behind it (and take some convincing to believe that; she's been on the receiving end of a human sacrifice ritual before). Once she knew, she'd either start finding her happy place until everything was over (and probably refuse to attend) or commence the royal smackdown that an evil critter deserved for setting something like that up.

 

Uplink: Be more or less helpless in this situation. Unless there's something network-enabled she can possess, she's not much good in a fight.

 

As an aside, in a setting with visible gods and deity-class beings, where magic is known to exist (also mentioned in the opening post), I find it interesting that so many people *default* to assuming that it's just misguided/evil savages.

 

And yeah... I don't think I've actually used the same characters in any of my WWYCD replies yet... this is what happens when most of your characters are designed in your downtime and used as much for writing as for GM'ing and playing....

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

 

No, it's evil when it's wrong. This scenario perfectly illustrates what is wrong with moral relativism and political correctness run amok.

 

Give that man a cigar!

 

and of course...

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trebuchet again.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

It's not self sacrifice; it's human sacrifice.

 

No, it's evil when it's wrong. This scenario perfectly illustrates what is wrong with moral relativism and political correctness run amok. "See? These nice Noble Savages offer up a human sacrifice annually as part of their religion! Who are we to interfere?" And if it was just like the scenario posed except the "native religion" in question was christianity; or the sacrifice demanded was a 4 year old child, or a virgin girl volunteering to be ritually raped to death, would that somehow be all right too?

 

Not really about the PC. About sacrificing yourself for a cause you believe in...

 

It would be wrong for them to kill someone for that. Someone killing _themself_? Suicide is a right, especially if it will accomplish something you believe in.

 

Someone has to exit the lifeboat.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

First, since he recently became a mage-priest of Isis, Dr. Anomaly would try and contact her and find out if an actual deity is behind this, or perhaps some other mystical force or entity. If there is, find out who or what, and try to negotiate a different deal that doesn't require an annual sacrifice of a human, willing or not.

 

If there is an entity behind it, and no accomodation can be reached, then he'd try to make them agree to a compromise, by force at this point, and hopefully with the rest of the team with him.

 

If there is no entity behind it, or they can't be beaten or forced into a new arrangement, definitely stop the sacrifice from happening. After that, work to find a way to make sure no ill befalls the land and/or people because that sacrifice didn't happen. (Even a couple of pips of 0 END Continuous Area of Effect Megascaled Transform can work wonders for changing deserts into lands flowing with milk & honey, for example, or depending on the circumstances and needs, a likewise Megascaled Permanent Effect Change Environment.)

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

None of my actual or would-be PCs would let his continue.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD 101:A question of faith

 

Not really about the PC. About sacrificing yourself for a cause you believe in...

See' date=' this is where you and some of the others have gotten off track. [b']This isn't about what the sacrificial victim is doing or believes - it's about what the characters do.[/b] Nobody is implying that the victim isn't acting nobly or unselfishly as a self-sacrifice. Obviously he or she is. This WWYCD question is about what player characters who know that his death isn't necessary do or don't do to prevent that needless death. People are conflating necessary self-sacrifice with wrongful death/murder. The fact that the person and/or his society think he's doing the right thing doesn't make this a good thing; any more than Hindu wives throwing themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres makes suttee moral.

 

To invoke Godwin's Law before someone else does; the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing by exterminating Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally retarded people. They honestly thought doing this would improve the human species; and had widespread approval from the German people for these actions. That doesn't make what they did excusable or right.