Sign in or 

|
wantmarmite |
New Group scenario
Jun 24 2012, 8:25 PM EDT
Your group died off and you were forced to find a new group due to running out of supplies and places to scavenge. A strong and stable group of 12 lets you join. Soon after, they are attacked by raiders. After winning the battle, they have an assortment of surviving prisoners. A couple of men, a woman, a young teen and an elderly man. The raiders came from a hostile neighbouring group. Your new group threatens to kill one for information. When information isn't divulged, they execute one of the prisoners. Then they proceed to isolate their prisoners and threaten to torture them for information on the neighbouring group. What do you do? Speak up? Resist? Leave? Accept? Do you find this acceptable behaviour post-apoc? 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
None
|
|
PedroAsani |
1. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 24 2012, 9:54 PM EDT
When you say raiders, do you mean Raiders, or just other desperate survivors? It makes quite a difference.
4
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
wantmarmite |
2. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 24 2012, 10:09 PM EDT
"When you say raiders, do you mean Raiders, or just other desperate survivors? It makes quite a difference."I'm imagining a neighbouring warlord forcing out desperate survivors on raiding missions. Why send your own people when you could force others to do your dirty work for you? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
RainofMails |
3. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 24 2012, 11:41 PM EDT
"I'm imagining a neighbouring warlord forcing out desperate survivors on raiding missions. Why send your own people when you could force others to do your dirty work for you?"In that case, why wouldn't the prisoners be willing to tell us everything they know? If you're loyal to a warlord who tells you to be a raider, you're a raider no matter how desperate you were before. If you're not loyal to them, help us get rid of them. I don't care if you cry after you kill my family because you didn't really want to do it, they're still dead. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
wantmarmite |
4. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 24 2012, 11:44 PM EDT
"In that case, why wouldn't the prisoners be willing to tell us everything they know? If you're loyal to a warlord who tells you to be a raider, you're a raider no matter how desperate you were before. If you're not loyal to them, help us get rid of them.Stockholm Syndrome or just plain fear. They're probably more afraid of the warlord than the new group. He/She might be holding hostages or have done something worse than they think this group is going to do. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
RainofMails |
5. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 24 2012, 11:50 PM EDT
"Stockholm Syndrome or just plain fear. They're probably more afraid of the warlord than the new group. He/She might be holding hostages or have done something worse than they think this group is going to do. "Then I have no problem treating them like any other raiders and killing them. I probably wouldn't personally make the decision to torture any of them but I certainly wouldn't leave any of them alive to attack me again. Do you find this valuable? |
|
11ACRBlackhorse |
6. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 2:38 AM EDT
So if I pitty them and help them survive/live. Then they become a future problem/threat. The reason they won't betray the warlord would be the reason they betray you later.Live with letting them get tortured so your group lives. Or risk death. Don't sound hard to me. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
IamSlowRide |
7. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 2:43 AM EDT
"So if I pitty them and help them survive/live. Then they become a future problem/threat. The reason they won't betray the warlord would be the reason they betray you later.^This^ Never leave enemies at your back, you get the information you can from them and then they become casualties of war Do you find this valuable? |
|
wantmarmite |
8. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 8:23 AM EDT
So you're all comfy with torture? Good to know.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
BigLoki |
9. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 8:44 AM EDT
Maybe I'm just grouchy because I've had no sleep... if so, I'll apologize, and edit things later.I've been sifting through all of these hypothetical situations this morning, and one main question seems to keep popping into my head: What part of "apocalypse", is warm and fuzzy? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apocalypse any universal or widespread destruction or disaster: the apocalypse of nuclear war. Morals will get looser, lines between right and wrong will become blurred, instead of things being "black and white" most will be gray. When competing for resources, people will resort to methods that seem barbaric, or even primal. We do it now as a people in some places. This isn't a new thing. Life is hard, post apoc it will be harder. I believe you will need to be hardened, smart, or both in order to count yourself among the long term survivors. It's quite possible that my strong belief in this is why I am not excited about being part of a large group anyway. -------> Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
10. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 8:44 AM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 25 2012, 8:47 AM EDT
To answer the OP:We're talking regular civilians that were "forced" into this action by a larger entity. This is a game changer. One has died, that can't be helped. The isolation and threat of torture is actually a viable technique, and I believe that any information that would have been derived from them, would be at this point. So, I would point this out to whomever is running the show. This leaves a couple of options: 1) They agree, end of issue. 2) They disagree, and continue torturing. In the event of response 1, we have a new issue. These people have been among our group and now have information that could be valuable to those that sent them. I would "strongly suggest" that on an individual basis, they can stay here, and we can work to the same end; or, I would end up killing them most likely. Call it what you like, it's unfortunate, but in my mind necessary. They take option 2: Well, I must say, I'd be disappointed, but they came to take from us, and even if they did nothing else, they are bringing out group to harm,a nd possible death. I wouldn't personally be torturing, and I would disapprove, but I wouldn't leave, or revolt about it. Mostly because as stated above, in my mind, they are never going back to where they came from anyway. Do you find this valuable? |
|
11ACRBlackhorse |
11. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 9:04 AM EDT
"So you're all comfy with torture? Good to know. "I never said I would be "comfy" with torture. Heck I wouldn't be "comfy" with killing people either. But I will to protect me and mine. And I bet they would do the same thing. But to survive nasty and unpleasant things will be done. If I was the group leader with my family, friends, and group members survival at stake. I would do it myself if other means didn't work. Remember my new group also has women, children, and elderly. And they are my responsibility to protect at all costs. So yes I will let torture happen but I still won't enjoy it. Or even be "comfy" with it. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wantmarmite |
12. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 9:28 AM EDT
"Maybe I'm just grouchy because I've had no sleep... if so, I'll apologize, and edit things later.I expect some morals to lapse. As things are right now, if I see someone slap their kid across the face in public, I'd react vehemently. Post-apoc, I don't think I would start something over it. I don't agree with the death penalty. Post-apoc, I don't really think there's always going to be a choice. Some criminals will need to be executed as a means of survival. I would never steal. There are food banks, womens shelters and welfare until I could get back on my feet. Post-apoc, I wouldn't have those luxuries to fall back on. I don't expect things to be warm and fuzzy. But I do need hold onto some vestiges of my humanity or what am I fighting to live for? Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
13. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 9:39 AM EDT
"I expect some morals to lapse. As things are right now, if I see someone slap their kid across the face in public, I'd react vehemently. Post-apoc, I don't think I would start something over it.I can wholeheartedly agree with that. The issue can become this though: At what point are you willing to trade the safety of yourself, and those close to you; for the morality you are trying to hold on to? ... because as in any other war, conflict, or competition for resources; information is as good as a weapon. You simply will not be able to afford a person with knowledge of your group, and how you work... who has already demonstrated a willingness to do you harm for their own benefit, to simply go on about their way. It's just too big a risk, and the consequence of misjudging their already suspect character is to great. It's unfortunate, but necessary that a raider will likely be a dead raider upon capture. Risks of the job I suppose. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wantmarmite |
14. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 9:47 AM EDT
"I can wholeheartedly agree with that. The issue can become this though: At what point are you willing to trade the safety of yourself, and those close to you; for the morality you are trying to hold on to? ... because as in any other war, conflict, or competition for resources; information is as good as a weapon. You simply will not be able to afford a person with knowledge of your group, and how you work... who has already demonstrated a willingness to do you harm for their own benefit, to simply go on about their way. It's just too big a risk, and the consequence of misjudging their already suspect character is to great. It's unfortunate, but necessary that a raider will likely be a dead raider upon capture. Risks of the job I suppose."Dead raider=acceptable. Tortured raider=unacceptable. At least to me. Threats don't bother me, but proceeding to torture is crossing the line for me. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
vampirejediknight |
15. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 9:52 AM EDT
"Maybe I'm just grouchy because I've had no sleep... if so, I'll apologize, and edit things later.Here's the thing, I think one of the best representations of moral questions and corruptions is the recent Batman movie seires. Gotham represents a state of total desperation and corruption, much like the apocalypse. A place where good deeds are dangerous and the criminals own the laws. Every cop's a criminal and all the sinners saints. It's a place where you have to try to figure out who can do the right thing, and when, and how, and what will happen when they do. You have to constanly gauge the lesser of two evils, the devil you know, who you can trust and why/how much. It's like the apocalypse. Their morals will become twisted with the twisted world. So we have to figure out not just what's the "right thing" but often what's the least wrong. The safest. Because sometimes, there is no "right" answer, and you have to find the best one. Do you find this valuable? |
|
vampirejediknight |
16. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 9:59 AM EDT
Thing is, how far will you go? How far will you let others go? We can't know until we get there, but we can plan what we want to do. The thing is, there are too many variables. Anyway, back to the thing I was saying. In order to do "right," you have to stand above. You have to be something "more," something that's not a part of their system. You have to take your morals to an extreme that you will do almost everything to keep people from getting hurt. But you will still have to gauge the lesser of two evils, the best answer, and in doing so, you have to hold yourself to a high moral code. Here's the thing, the worse things you have to do, the better ways you have to try to do them. Torture is wrong, but it is also strategic. Is it better to risk the lives of your allies, or repay the wickedness of your enemies? That's the question here. Fact is, there's an easy answer. Torture isn't the only way to make someone talk. Find out their situation, treat them humanely, maybe offer them some kind of deal. It may go much better. You see, torture is a last resort for getting information, not go-to answer. Explain the strategic advantages of not torturing and killing them YET, and you will have everyone doing right with a chance of everyone winning. Do you find this valuable? |
|
wantmarmite |
17. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 10:06 AM EDT
I don't think torture is all that valuable. They may not know anything to start with. They're being sent to do someone else's bidding. They'll probably say anything to make it stop. What information can you even trust out of torture? I think people cross the line with torture and the information is unreliable. If I were them, I would tell so many truths, untruths and outright lies that it would be incredibly diffiult to figure out what was true and what was lie. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
wantmarmite |
18. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 10:44 AM EDT
Which forms of torture are acceptable? Plain old beatings with fists or weapons? Scorching with hot water or tar? Hunger, thirst and sleep deprivation? Water boarding, suffocation or strangulation? Hammering metal nails under fingernails? Stretching or hanging? Electric shock? Force feeding urine and feces? Rape with an inanimate object such as a knife? Cutting off digits? Breaking bones one at a time? Force them to sit in their own excrement and urine for days? Really, what is the limit? Are you sure you're comfortable with this taking place in your enclave? You'd be a part of this, even if you didn't actively participate. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
19. RE: New Group scenario
Jun 25 2012, 10:57 AM EDT
"Which forms of torture are acceptable?If I'm not the leader? If I am not directly in control of whether this is put into practice or not? If they are raiders, and not members of our group? If we are otherwise happy, and free from tyranny from our leadership? If they were doing it out of ignorance for how the human mind responds, or because they truly believed that there was valuable information to be gained, and this was a way to get it? Yeah. I'd be upset about it, I'd disagree loudly to leadership about it. I would verbally condemn it... but then I'd go eat a sandwich or something, and wash my hands of it. It's not a call I would make, but in this scenario I'm not making the calls. It's only opinion that lumps me into being a part of it even though I don't actively participate. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |