>>55845421
Pull lever, pray for the sweet release of death.

Gordian knot solution: Kill the puzzle asking BBEG

>>55845421
Not a particularly effective defence, barbarians and the like will just burn or smash the fortress.

Also I think non-obvious defences (barring illusions and the like) are much better in fiction than in games - you either have to rely on players to get it (which is liable to make quite a flimsy defence) or you have "roll int". It is possible for higher int to equal more tips and clues, but that's still far from ideal

As for the puzzle:
Leave the leaver - even in the absolute "best" case scenario (where you have to trust the other guy to not put self-preservation first) 4 people still die.

>>55845439
This.

>>55845421
anyone has the complex version of this where several other philosophical problems are included?

File: ancap train.jpg (85 KB, 800x487)

85 KB JPG

>>55845569
The only problem you need.

File: 1489470018828.png (48 KB, 700x512)

48 KB PNG

>any answer other than multi-track drifting

>>55845572
Free market would had solved this kind of situations. The 4 guys on the rails are spooks.

>>55845572
Yes.
Now, I would like to see anyone trying to sue me once the media will know that I tresspassed to save 5 people, for only public opinion matters. Checkmate, problem.

File: 1507130636953.png (586 KB, 650x1350)

586 KB PNG

>>55845572
>A "private property" sign is enough to keep pesky adventurers out of the BBEG's stronghold

File: dnd ancap.jpg (106 KB, 853x596)

106 KB JPG

>>55845660
>Courts
>Public opinion
>Mattering in the anarcho-capitalist society

>As you strike down the evil overlord, you notice he was merely a shadow on the wall

We had a 1920s All-Lawyer Call Of Cthulhu one-shot that ended in acknowledging Dagon was legally speaking entitled to the evil artifact, so we handed it over.

File: trapmaster.jpg (153 KB, 760x596)

153 KB JPG

>>55845421
If both guys don't pull the levers 6 people would be saved.

>>55845421
>BBEG

Ugh.

>>55846221
>Ugh.
faggot

>>55845572
In the U.S, the railroad company trumps your private property.

File: 1507766530240.png (161 KB, 800x600)

161 KB PNG

>>55845421
>BBEG keeps kidnapping people to force various and horrible trolley problems
>It is up to the party to find him and stop him

>>55845484
That’s why you have a DMPC to give them hints if they’re still banging their head on the wall after 40 minutes.

>>55846235
>faggot
ugh hoe homophobic

>>55846435
I DON'T UNDERSTAND MISTER SNIDLEY VON EVIL

YOUR FIENDISH SCHEMES BAFFLE ME

>>55845421

Naturally you don't pull it. i'm not risking my life to save random person #54646546.

>>55846235

Ugh, homophobic much? It's 2017, sweetie...

>>55846514
Fuck off, false-flagging /pol/shit.

>>55846514
faggots are transphobic because they want to have sex with men instead of transgender girls.

Always one box
Trust the predictor, it's never been wrong, the odds are obviously in your favor
Twoboxers are spineless idiots

File: 138593628.jpg (80 KB, 480x468)

80 KB JPG

>>55845632

>>55846435
The worst thing is, is that this is actually better than the original version of the problem, which is explaining the moral quandary of the bystander. Do they leave the system alone, and maybe five people will die due to their inaction, or do they switch, and definitely kill one person? How do you explain your decision to the man in the box? What if the predictor lies?
>>55846102
related

>>55846563
TDT still produces the best outcome, it's just this new scenario is crueler by design

>>55846435
Usually if the problem is too confusing I just don't bother and let it run. If it kills somebody, it kills somebody

>>55846599
But should you be held morally responsible for not making an attempt to figure out the problem to save the most people?

>>55846624
So long as I'm not held physically responsible I don't give af

>>55846624
>save the most people

Isn't the goal to get the highest score?

>>55846535
Is your goal to maximize the number of dead?

>>55846820
twoboxing will kill six

>>55846867
Twoboxing kills one. Box is empty if you switch. Not if you don't.

I put quarters on the tracks in front of the trolleys and cause both to derail, killing no one.

>>55846624
>save the most people?
If you pull the lever you didn't save 5 people you killed one, inaction is the best choice for you personally

>>55846911
spoken like a true noob

>>55846886
look at the lever, it's already pointing up. switching it puts trolley on bottom track.

Don't do anything because participating in it is murder no matter what you choose.

>>55846925
You're just upset you didn't think of option 3 sooner.

>>55846933
>it is murder no matter what you choose

Does a paladin fall if he pulls the lever? Putting a "good" paladin in this scenario would cause more deaths than a neutral who pulls the lever. The paladin should fall for not acting.

>>55846958
He does because he voluntarily kills innocent people.

>>55846958
>implying the paladin would not smite the trolley off the tracks and save everyone
Pathetic.

>>55845421
Spend 1 mythic point: punch trolley into stratosphere as swift action
Charge other trolley and full attack with pummeling charge

0 casualties

>>55846966
By not pulling the lever he actively chooses to kill 5 people so this is just another baby orc situation.

>>55846981
No, he doesn't. The lever was already set in position to kill 5 people. It's not a paladin's fault. However, switching the lever means that he kills innocent person because he thinks that he has a right to do so.

>>55847002
Inaction when you could minimise casualties is easily as bad as taking action and leaving 1 dead.

>>55846563
>What if the predictor lies?
Then the problem statement itself is lying.

>Pull level
>Cast allocation and exchange myself with the victim
>Cast heros defiance and survive

>>55846930
This contradicts the problem description and furthermore there is no reason to assume the lever is pointing in the direction of the track chosen.
You have to flip it to divert the cart to track 2.

>>55847002
> because he thinks that he has a right to do so.

Which is funny because literally anyone else who isn't afraid of falling will be able to act and save more lives than the paladin. Some hero.

>>55846435
The answer to this one is: the predictor is an asshole and should be held responsible.
If you are the only one to know the predictor exists this is a question about face: you can safe five people but it looks like you killed one, or you can just do nothing, which if the existence of the predictor is unknown to anyone else, is the logical choice as the tracks reunite.

However, the fact that the predictor always predicts correctly makes the choice pretty obsolete as it is no decision at all. the fact that the contents of the opaque box are already in place also take away all the freedom you may think you have.
you will do what you do and things will happen.

>>55847011
"Minimizing casualties" might work at wartime, but not in situations like this.

>>55847047
>the fact that the predictor always predicts correctly makes the choice pretty obsolete as it is no decision at all.

Actually perfect prediction is not essential to the problem. Even if the Predictor is merely right a majority of the time the decision problem remains intact.

>>55845572
Yes, I would invade the property, because the Justice of God is higher than the laws of mortals

And that's only if I can't Smite the train. And even then, I'd still try to Smite the train

>>55846435
I live my entire life acting how how I'd behave if I intended to two-box, and in my heart I keep the one-box truth quiet and waiting for this moment. Then, I attempt to derail the trolley and dedicate my life to stopping this sick fuck predictor in the name of any who die, taking solace in the fact that they will never have to deal with this trolley problem. I probably kill 5 or 6 people by doing all this, but it's for the best that they don't face this trolley problem.

>>55847075
If the predictor is not infallible it becomes a lot harder to justify your choice. You switch the track to save five people. If there's a chance that the box is empty even if you don't switch, or worse, that it's filled even if you do, makes the whole thing questionable. But I guess it does show more clearly that it's really all out of your hands and the Predictor is the one who's at fault here.

>>55847106
>I live my entire life acting how how I'd behave if I intended to two-box
Just what a one-boxer would do.

>>55847103
But anon, the right of private property is given by God.

File: trolly problem cap no you move.jpg (192 KB, 1406x806)

192 KB JPG

>>55846958
Paladin response here. The correct answer is to have become strong enough to halt the Trolley without anyone dying.

>>55847135
The picture is bad because this trolley version gets the boxes around the opposite way. You onebox to get the cool million because you have to behave assuming your actions are what the predictor is using to make the prediction (a perfect copy of you tested to predict the actions of the real you)

That always nets you the million. But that's one boxing.

In this trolley version, you wanna smash the lone guy up top for minimum causalities and the same strategy applies, but in this case it's #2 for no good reason.

>>55846435
I pull the switch twice.

>>55847214
>minimum causalities
Are you a qualified military commander, tasked with fulfilling cruicial task? Is person you are going to kill under you command and understands that you may sacrifice him in order to achieve you goals?

>>55847135
As the Lord giveth, so he taketh away, that which blessings the the unworthy abuse. If the owner would not allow me access to perform God's holy will, clearly he is unworthy of the blessings he has, and his writ forsake

>>55846958
When it comes to paladins if it's a no-win situation it's can't cause him to fall. He tried his best.

>>55847254
The lives are going to be saved whether or not he understands or accepts it. His death ensures the predictor does not place five more victims in the path of the trolley.

File: 1507765324845.jpg (194 KB, 1000x1000)

194 KB JPG

>>55845421

File: 1507765706989m.jpg (72 KB, 742x1024)

72 KB JPG

>>55847333

File: 1507763943070.png (137 KB, 960x383)

137 KB PNG

>>55847348

>>55847348
Oh i like this one

>>55847348
The logical choice is to kill the five. If even a single person doesn't divert the trolley your actions resulted in more people dying than if you did nothing. Even if everyone diverts the trolley you saved a net one life and you and three other people are culpable as murderers.

>>55845421
If I do nothing, then we will kill at least 5 people. If I do nothing and he pulls, then we will kill 8 people.
If I pull and he pulls, then we will kill 4 people.
If I pull and he doesn't pull, then we will kill 8 people.

The best solution discounting the threat to me is to pull the lever, because it results in the minimal amount of possible people killed. However, I can't trust the other person to reason through this (or not reach this step of the reasoning if he does reason through it), and there is a direct threat to my life if I pull the lever. I am justified in not pulling to preserve my life.

Afterwards, assuming we both survive, I join blue in hunting down the trolley system designer and his rope tying accomplice.

>>55845572
Change it up so that the 4 people on the tracks are people who regularly post libertarian strawman images on 4chan. Then I might be tempted to drive the trolley myself over those morons.

Even in the strictest interpretation of libertarianism, you should pull the lever. Worst case scenario you get sued for any damage to the property (which will usually be minimal), and you can raise as a defense the trolly villain's culpability for causing the scenario and pass your liability onto him.

File: blind.png (343 KB, 742x1024)

343 KB PNG

>>55847397
What if you don't know how many people are further down the line? Is it okay to pull the lever and pass the problem off to someone else?

>>55847476
In that case, you don't even know if there are other dudes and trolley problems set up. The best course of action is to behave as if there is only you, and not worry about what other people will do.

>>55847476
It doesn't change anything for you. From your perspective its just a regular trolley problem.

File: penis.png (8 KB, 57x71)

8 KB PNG

>>55847365

>>55847525
It remains the same problem as >>55847397

With a clear view you don't know if the guys further down the line will lever or not, the same way if your view is occluded you don't know if there's more bodies on the track just out of sight. Better to kill those five guys now than take the infinite possible casualties further down the track.

>>55845421
>BBEG

ugh.

>>55847578
You don't know in a normal trolley problem if there are people down the track past the horizon. Putting a blind on it makes it a normal trolley problem.

>>55847593
You don't know the minds of the other dudes either.

>/tg/ - trolley general

>>55847578
>>55847593
Also, examine the logical application of your solution to the real world.

Any individual you come across you should kill. Because you just don't know that they won't go on to have 5 children that they will torture for their entire life before those 5 children go on to do the same. Better to kill him now than take the infinite possible casualties further down their life.

>>55847627
Exactly. Best solution, wall or no wall, is to pull the lever, do the least harm, thee best you can, and pass whatever problem remains to future agents.

>>55846525

Ugh, /pol/-phobic much? It's 2017 sweetie... now conform before I call antiCom and punch a commie.

All of these have very simple solutions:

1) Pick the track with the most arabs/africans

2) If all are white/asian, then minimize casualties

I've heard lots of shit about /pol/ invading threads on this board, but this is the first time it's undeniably what's happening

File: 1493401149541.jpg (36 KB, 598x543)

36 KB JPG

>>55845421

>>55846435
Did the people whose choices were correctly predicted knew that the Predictor was (previously) infallible ?

>>55847800

I honestly think there's just a large crossover of users. I see threads about gamergate and stuff on /pol/ regularly (sure, that's /v/ technically, but I've seen such things here), there's all the 'god-emperor'-stuff, and well, I'm both on /pol/ and here.

>>55846435

I pull the switch as the trolley passes the junction, thus causing it to derail.

>>55847800
>>55847849
This, I imagine very few 4chan users actually browse a single board only and the boards are not isolated islands - some of the "culture" spreads and mixes

>>55848008
Are the people tied to the track Union members, and is there time to tie the union rep to the track?

>>55848008
I STAND ON THE TRACK AND PULL THE LEVER

>>55848008
NEVER CROSS A PICKET LINE

>>55848008
The sad thing is, this situation has probably happened to people.

>>55847893
>and the boards are not isolated islands

Ironically, this is /pol/'s worse nightmare. The ideal /pol/ world is each nation having total autarky.

>>55846450
> hoe
Slut-shamer misogynist.

>>55847826
Well, if you don't switch, your case is fucked, because now you have covered both actions between the two scenarios, so even if you made the moral choice one of those times, the other time was then wrong.
But if you kill your defense attorney, the jurors might listen to you, you having saved their lives at personal risk, and the greater difference in loss of life makes your morality more pronounced. Let twelve die vs kill one is more in favor of the killing than let five vs cause one.
So, the correct answer here would definitely be to kill the lawyer. Why that ever needed to be debated I don't know.

>>55845421
Isn't this the Prisoner's Dilemma?
I know the rational answer is what >>55845484 said, but in practice I think both participants would pull the lever assuming both would be willing to pull it in the standard Trolley Dilemma.

>>55845632
>>55847461
>4 people
There are clearly 5 on the rails.

>>55846102
If both guys do pull the lever 7 people will be saved.
If only one of them pulls the lever only 3 people will be saved.

>>55847038
Why would anyone want to be a paladin? It seems so easy to lose your job that you worked so hard for.
Sorcerers can't lose anything unless they get maimed.
Most other classes can lose things, but only if they get maimed or suffer memory loss.

>>55848133

No, the ideal /pol/ world is that every nation is like Japan. 99% ethnically of the race that 'owns' it historically. Sounds very comfy to me.

>>55847588
You are so new here it hurts

File: Yet Another Trolly Problem.png (51 KB, 676x529)

51 KB PNG

Why is this so abusable?

>>55848449
The rub is when they want to physically remove everyone not the main ethnicity, or the nations with an ethnic plurality.

>>55848449
Humans didn't "spawn" in their various countries at the dawn of time.
Define "owns it historically" in a way that doesn't put us all in Africa (or whatever the current migration theory is.)

>>55848524
yes

>>55848548

Well, that's not a 'rub', that is the point. Can't achieve ethnic homogeneity if you don't kick out subhumans.

>>55848576

Example: Swedes 'owns' Sweden more than a random Ahmed from the desert.

Do you have an issue with this basic statement?

>>55847826
>Scenario 1: I didn't pull the lever in the first problem.
I think I'm fucked either way. If I pull it maybe the jury will be swayed, but 5 people in the original problem are still dead, and now I have no lawyer. If I don't pull it I might still have my lawyer and my case will be consistent, but now the death toll is 17 and the new jury will likely be against me.

>Scenario 2: I pulled the lever in the first problem.
Don't pull the lever to prove a point. My lawyer will be able to use this example in my favor and will be grateful that I didn't kill him by making the same mistake again.

>>55848524
Common sense is not always useful in math and science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

File: 1468057101659.png (23 KB, 694x578)

23 KB PNG

>>55847461
>trespassing on property to do """good"""
Pretty spooky, statist.

>>55848622
I think the better question here is WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A TROLLY PROBLEM IN THE COURTROOM!?

>>55848661
Clearly a Cartesian demon is deceiving you.

>>55848524
Way it's phrased makes it clear that only one of the remaining tracks has an innocent person on it, meaning the other remaining track is clear. So yes.

>>55847333
That loopdeloop one gets me every time

>>55849105
Same

>>55845569
Actually, the one in the OP is also a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
>you can choose to condemn or cooperate with your partner, but you choose without knowing what they choose
>if you choose not to kill them, but they choose to kill you, you will die and get worst end. If you both try to kill each other, you get a bad end (trolleys broken). If you both cooperate you get the best end (neither of you dies, trolleys stay whole).

>>55848008
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on...?

>>55846563
It's not better than the original if you look at the original in the context of being an argument for utilitarianism.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/

File: 1498141745529.jpg (207 KB, 730x544)

207 KB JPG

>>55845569
This one?

>>55845421
http://www.radiolab.org/story/golden-rule/

>>55846435
I feel like I don't understand.
If the people have already been placed then what my choice is doesn't matter. It's always the best choice to send it down track 2 in the hope that he was wrong.

>>55851127
I mean leave it on track 1 I'm retarded.

>>55846435
If the second track didn't merge with the first track then this would actually be a question. Save 1 person and possibly kill 5 or kill 1 person and possibly save no one. As it is it is always correct to send it down track 1 as the people have already been placed, so sending it down track 2 will do nothing other than kill that one guy before it takes out the opaque box regardless.

File: 1446218705-20151030[1].png (395 KB, 684x1516)

395 KB PNG

>>55845569

>>55851825
But whether or not the people have already been placed depends on what track you send it down.

>>55847348
This is a good one.

>>55851947
>The person surgically connected to you... IS THE BAKER
What's the problem? Now you're more or less doing the same work as the baker (or at least enabling him to do his work), so he can feed your family.

>>55851959
On what track you would put it down. The decision to put the people into the box or not put them into the box has already been made. With that in mind the right choice is to always send it down the empty track.

>>55845421
I can either take the chance and pull the lever, hop onto the back of the trolley or try and signal the man with my hands.

>>55852136
>The decision to put the people into the box or not put them into the box has already been made.
That's not how precog works. Your decision in the future retroactively changes the past because that information travels through time.

>>55852049
It really isn't.

>Let the train go
>5 People die

>Redirect the train
>1 Person Dies
>Next guy refuses to redirect the train
>Six people die
>Second guy redirects the train
>2 people die
>Third guy fails to redirect the train
>7 people die

The only way for choosing to redirect the train to be a good decision is if you knew what choice everyone would make (making the problem "would you let 5 people die rather than let 4 people die and 4 more people have the guilt of a conscious murder on their conscious"). Otherwise you are betting that three other strangers will all redirect the train which while probably statistically feasible makes the problem pretty stupid. So wording the problem in a new way

>You are the guy in red
>You know that if you redirect the train every other person after you will do so too
>Everyone who redirects the train will be sued by the victims' families and have their lives ruined
>Do you redirect the train?

Is one actual living person worth having four other people's lives (including your own) ruined?

>>55852209
>>55852136
Or in other words, its exactly equivalent to the predictor seeing your choice then traveling back in time to tell his past self what you chose. His actions are entirely based on yours - you cause the people to be placed in the box or not.

File: gunther.jpg (17 KB, 400x400)

17 KB JPG

>>55845421
>You cannot move out of the way

>>55852209
At no point is precog mentioned the only two things mentioned about the predictor is his nickname (the predictor) and the fact that he has never been wrong. Neither of these inherently prove or even imply precognition. First off the predictor just means that he predicts, not that he knows or is inherently correct. Secondly just because he has always been right doesn't mean anything. If you have me flip a coin and guess heads or tails me guessing correctly doesn't imply that I have precognition. Beyond that no mention is given as to how many times the predictor has done this, this could just be the second time he has done this puzzle making the "never wrong" claim significantly less impressive.

>>55848576
New evidence suggests man may have originated in Europa

>>55848619
Where do you define the borders of Sweden? This is particularly notable in the rest of Europe. Does Alsace-Lorraine go to Germany or France? What happens of multi-ethnic states like Switzerland? Does East Prussia stay with Russia go to Poland who had historically owned it or Germany who owned it just prior to Russia? What about regions that are still the same ethnicity as the majority of the population but still desire complete political autonomy?

File: deGQUO9.png (209 KB, 828x588)

209 KB PNG

>>55852282
Maybe you should join the ethicists...In a body bag!

>>55852285
>Beyond that no mention is given as to how many times the predictor has done this, this could just be the second time he has done this puzzle making the "never wrong" claim significantly less impressive.
Don't try to answer trolley problems if you can't read the question. What part of "many" don't you understand?

>>55852584
Okay, minimum of two. Either way it doesn't state nor imply precognition. If I guess two, three, or hell even ten coin flips in a row would you assume that I am psychic and can see the future?

>>55852747
Exactly. And to further support that it states that, "The contents of the box are already in place and the Predictor has moved on", which clearly states that the contents of the box will not change depending on what you decide.
That said, if he does have time-altering powers somehow and my decision now affects the contents of the box then this is even more simple. You send it down track 2 to kill one guy and smash an empty box.

>>55845985
I’d love to have some sort of lovecraftian setting that focuses on how lovecraft’s work was responding to cosmological discoveries and social currents that were daunting and alien at the time, but have since become pretty well accepted and understood. It would be the standard 20s horror adventures with elder gods and fear of mankind’s insignificant stature in the face of the universe, but it would also bring in time traveling, Clarketech building, electric-souled, hyper-capitalist posthuman suits and scientists that are even more horrible and inhuman in the eyes of the Investigators. The ancient ones might be pentapodal anemone people, but at least they bleed and feel.

>>55847826
>12 Jurors
>1 Lawyer
Don't pull the lever, only lawyer is kill, no people were harmed in the making of this trolley problem. Pull "I saved your life" on the jurors

>>55847826
>Pull lever
>No humans die

File: ffffuuuuuuuuuuu.jpg (63 KB, 1280x720)

63 KB JPG

>>55845421

>>55854612
the only winning move
is not to play

>>55850062
this is great.
i recognize all these.

>>55854709
I recognise the allegory of the cave, Achilles and the tortoise, the Chinese room and the ship of thesus. What are the veil of ignorance and the demonically possessed child from?

>>55845421

>complex philosophical puzzle

Alright, this is as good a thread as any to post the quandary I find myself in.

I'm a lawful neutral cleric, a worshipper of Pholtus, and the game I'm in is a semi-sandbox West Marches style 5e game. The game has a decent amount of rules homebrewed onto it, one of which is that each player is a sort of ascended being, in a sense a demi-demi-god, referred to as a 'Baron' who has an appropriate title. I chose the Baron of Justice as my title, and one of the character attributes written on my sheet is that "my honor is my life."

The players started out as the ruling council of a town on a southern island. The other towns and cities in this world have had their population, allegiances, and disposition toward each other determined by dicerolls. Due to bad luck with rolls, all the other towns on the island started out at war with us. We were outnumbered and ended up having to take as many of our people as we could to flee the island. Upon arriving on the mainland, we discovered 4 main towns of interest (keep in mind there are still many towns unexplored with their allegiances and dispositions unknown).

The first town is populated by hobgoblins, who in this universe are a sort of hybrid of humans and goblins. They were building and setting up siege engines, preparing for war when we arrived. We learned that the hobgoblins had captured a human princess and were going to attempt to use her as leverage, and that their siege engines were being prepared for an assault on the nearby human city. We asked them if there was anything we could to to convince them to release the human princess to us. They told us to gather them more forces to help in their war effort against the humans or fuck off. We elected to fuck off. (We managed to get something like one or two thousand people to the mainland, but we're still small and weak compared to any of these other cities. We would definitely lose in a direct war with any of them.)

>>55854798 (cont'd)

We then went to the human city to warn them, only to realize the people there really deserve to be destroyed by the hobgoblins. They are fanatical human supremacists, and view every other race as servants or slaves. We find out the reason the hobgoblins hate them so much is because the hobgoblins were created due to forced breeding, an attempt by the humans of "uplifing" a race by adding human genes into the mix, and now the hobgoblins exist as outcasts from both human and goblin society. We also learned that the princess had fled from the human city, which is how the hobgoblins were able to capture her. Her people now consider her a traitor and don't care about her well-being at all. At the end of our encounter with the human representative, our artificer, who is a high-elf, managed to say one too many things implying that humans aren't all that superior, which really pissed them off. We fled north.

The next city we encountered is a city of aasimar. They worship the god Linnos, and have wards that apparently keep people unaligned with Linnos from entering their domain. As a follower of Pholtus, I was allowed in, and they also welcomed our Artificer. The artificer had lost his arm in an earlier battle, prayed in desperation to Linnos, and been granted a new one. He had been a devout follower of Linnos ever since. So the two of us were allowed entry into the city, but no one else. Despite not allowing most of us into the city, the Aasimar did volunteer to help us construct a settlement nearby for our people. So at last we had housing for the people we had brought with us from the island. We also learned that the Aasimar also hate the human city, but in general didn't seem very warlike so we didn't bring up the issue of allying with the hobgoblins to crush them.

While exploring nearby, we were approached by a representative of the fourth city.

>>55854817 (cont'd)

Now this city we had been avoiding. We knew it was ruled by a group of vampires, who keep mortals as essentially cattle. The vampire representative was in the area looking for the human princess, whom he knew to be a runaway and little else. During our conversation, we learned that the vampires, too, are interested in seeing the human city destroyed, which is why he was seeking the princess. Upon hearing this, some members of our group decided to share what we knew of the hobgoblins: both that they had the princess, and that they were preparing to assault the humans and were looking for more numbers to join them. The vampire representative offered us a deal, and gave us some time to discuss it amongst ourselves. The deal is that we return to the hobgoblins and inform them that the vampires would ally with them against the humans, but in return, the hobgoblins have to ally with the vampires to crush the aasimar city. In exchange for our group facilitating this, the vampires would consider us an ally going forward and would allow us to take the princess into our custody.

Now I might need to elaborate on the 4 cities and what we know of them, which goes into our group's decision-making process. The aasimar city is the smallest of the four, but is protected by 4 statues to Linnos, which makes it impossible for the vampires to ever assault, no matter how big of a numbers advantage they have. This is the only reason the vampires need outside help to kill them. If those four statues go down, the aasimar are done for, which is essentially what the vampires need the hobgoblins for. The hobgoblin and vampire cities are both bigger than the aasimar one, and likely stronger militarily. The human city is the biggest of the four, but like I mentioned earlier, they managed to piss everyone off and likely have no allies.

>>55854783
Veil of Ignorance is Rawlins, demonic possession is Descartes.

>>55854843 (cont'd)

Someone on the party makes the point that the aasimar are completely outmatched, and now that the vampires know how much the hobgoblins want the humans dead, they can ally together with or without our help. The logic is that the aasimar are doomed no matter what we do, so we might as well join the winning side. At this point though, both I and the artificer are deeply opposed to the destruction of the aasimar for any reason. My god is an ally to their god, and the artificer owes his restored arm to Linnos. We refuse to budge on the matter.

So when the vampire returns, we inform him that we cannot accept the deal as offered, but we would be willing to help him in any way that does not involve the destruction of the aasimar. The vampire says that the aasimar and the vampires, by their very nature, cannot coexist, and that if we stand by the aasimar, we will be marked as enemies by his people. The rest of the party then points to me and the artificer as the ones standing in the way of accepting the deal. The vampire asks us why we cannot do as he asks, and the artificer explains how he owes Linnos for giving back his arm. The vampire promises that if we help him, he can do all that and more, and beckons our ranger forward. Now, the ranger was one of the biggest proponents of helping the vampires from the moment the deal was offered, and she does as he asks. The vampire draws his sword and cuts her arm off with one swing. Seconds later, he grasps the stump and magically regenerates her arm for her.

Which me to the situation now. The entire party is now on board with accepting the vampire's deal. I remained silent for the rest of the session, but I don't think I can support this in good conscience. My characer isn't built for deception or subterfuge, so betraying the party will almost certainly lead to my own death. What do?

TLDR would pretty much be betraying my god if I continue to help the party, but as a player am averse to betraying them.

>>55854783
Rawls' veil of ignorance
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

Descartes' demon of deceipt
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#3.2

>>55854612
Its a flawed statement. A state of correctness is not defined. A complete question contains an assertion of correctness. For example, if the randomly chosen answer is A, there is no way of knowing if A is correct, regardless of its value. Masking the value of each answer makes this clear. If you were to simply replace each value with a variable and ask somebody to come up with a version of this question with a solution you could not.

File: 1461089406809.jpg (38 KB, 663x579)

38 KB JPG

>>55854892
>deceipt
kill me

File: assumptions-ahead-sign.jpg (116 KB, 757x631)

116 KB JPG

>>55854798

First, inform the Aasimar of the brewing alliance.

Second, say nothing.

Third, advise the Aasimar to begin construction of mobile statues of Linnos.

Fourth, as the vampires are aiding the Hobgoblins in the destruction of the human city, lead the Aasimar in an attack on the vampire capital, using the mobile statues of Linnos to create a base of operations (Aasimar are supremely mobile, being an aerial race that has no difficulty operating during night or day)

Fifth, advise Aasimar to send an emissary to the human kingdom to warn _them_ of the alliance, providing them with some measure of anti-vampire weaponry whilst preparing to ambush and harry the combined forces of Hobgoblins and vampires on their way to the human kingdom (setting supplies on fire, dropping arrows from unreachable heights during the day, etc) inflicting maximum casualties on the moving army.

Finally, advise Aasimar to send an emmisary to the goblin kingdom, informing them that the Hobgoblin kingdom will be largely undefended during this period of time, and thus easy to invade and pillage.


If all of this works out like it should, the human, hobgoblin, and vampire kingdoms should all be severely weakened, leaving the Aasimars on equal footing with everyone except the goblins.

>>55855029

To clarify the second point, say nothing to your party about your position one way or another. Allow them to assume you have accepted this alliance as inevitable.

On the Fourth point, if you can not for whatever reason, lead the assault against these vampires then do what you can to feed the Aasimar information about high priority targets inside the combined hobgoblin/vampire army.

>>55855029
>If all of this works out like it should

I don't think I can pull all that off without being detected. One thing I haven't mentioned is how we get around. Right now I rely on the resources of my party to provide quick transport to and from places. If I go off on my own to warn the aasimar, I'll be gone for days at a minimum and they'll know what I did. Worst case scenario they catch up to me en route and kill me before I even reach them.

One option: I mentioned how we evacuated a small number of our people from the island. I have a couple of trusted followers I could send to warn the aasimar instead but I'm honestly not sure how quickly their absence would be noticed. It's a tough decision because my most loyal followers are probably the ones whose absence would be noticed first, so I'd have to balance choosing someone who could slip away unnoticed with choosing someone who might not be fully trustworthy.

If the party notices I'm gone, or one of my followers is, they can definitely rally the vampires and the hobgoblins faster than I can reach anyone. One thing I was thinking of was using Feign Death to get one of my followers out of the city but that involves too much direct deception to be feasible, I think.

>>55855136

If you're a cleric, what level are you? You may be able to use message spells. Otherwise you could attempt to disguise someone else as one of your more loyal followers using mundane disguise skills.

Detection isn't about lying, it's about making others assume there isn't anything to find. Simply act normal enough that they won't question your actions, and you shouldn't need to use bluff.

File: AAEAAQAAAAAAAAinAAAAJDM4M(...).jpg (58 KB, 650x372)

58 KB JPG

>>55845421
rl0,bl0 = 5people+2trollys
rl1,bl0 = 2+5+1people
rl0,bl1 = 2+5+1people
rl1,bl1 = 4people
seems like the best thing to do is to pull the leaver
best case 4 die, worst 8. but 2 (hopefully full) trolleys survive.

that said:
no nothing, save myself.

>>55855269

Oh shit, I completely forgot about Sending. That might be what I need to turn this all around. I can just go into my house and try to ally the hobgoblin leader and one of the aasimar without ever leaving. I'm level 6, by the way.

>Detection isn't about lying, it's about making others assume there isn't anything to find.

Exactly, which was my main problem with the Feign Death plan. I would need to make it look like a real death, and for some reason other than "I'm super mad at my follower and smite him where he stands." That would arouse suspicion pretty quick, if anything looks out of place I'm already the guy that the party will be most suspicious of.

>>55855347

'I smite him' are hunting accidents not a thing in your area? Go on a monster hunting expedition with him to 'cool off'. Have him take a tumble off a cliff to throw off a person you assume will be following you. (Make sure someone is either with you, or following you that can reliably verify this story.)

>>55845421
>BBEG

Bleh.

>>55855413

Some of the stuff like gathering resources from the woods is just sort of automated. We have a number of people in our town, and it's just assumed that it happens. If I take a bunch of extra time to go on hunting expeditions, it will arouse meta-suspicion, doubly so if someone dies on the trip.

>>55855444

It won't arouse suspicion if they expect that you're going to be incredibly against the idea of this alliance in the first place, and will be taking time to adjust to it. As long as you make it unusual in an expected way, it should be fine.

But, ultimately, you'll know your own party better than I would, and a simple spell would be far more effective than sending one of your companions at any rate.

File: Understanding Paladins.jpg (1.98 MB, 1987x3056)

1.98 MB JPG

>>55854888
>>55854843
>>55854817
>>55854798
send each of your trusted allies to warn them.
tell each to take a different path.
Then garter the party and play for time,
make them spend so long; arguing, fighting, hunting and killing you.
that the message get's through.
>"my honour is my life"
then roll up a new char
least that's what I'd do

>>55854888
Stick with the aasimar, the vampire has already demonstrated its contempt for life by chopping off the ranger's arm and reattaching it simply to demonstrate its capability.

>>55855430
>Bleh
faggot

>>55854612
>What is the chance you will be correct?
Yes.

>>55854798
I agree that sending to the aasimar is a good idea, and that you should try to get them to team up with the hobgoblins.
But also how does the human city feel about you? I'm not up on my 5e lore, but generally vampires are ex-mortals, in addition to the whole feeding on them thing.
So if the humans are informed that a bunch of humans have not only forsaken their humanity, but also keep humans (among other races on both counts, but still) as slaves/cattle, and on top of that are seeking allies to overthrow the human city, that'd probably be enough to set them on the war path, weakening both them and the vamps.
Hopefully it'd also give you more time to get the hobs and the aasimar to team up.

>>55850062
I mean, that one's easy. You just fire either cannon, the point is that the pieces of the ship are identical or better.

>>55856067
>But also how does the human city feel about you?

We met with one representative. Once we found out how human supremacist they were, I tried to turn the conversation to how our old enemies from the island view themselves as the best and might represent a future threat to the humans. I was basically trying to sow the seeds of maybe getting the humans to go smash all the guys that had driven us away from the island. The human guy basically said they had a larger army, and so weren't afraid, and so our high elf artificer said something like "quality over quantity" which nearly burst a vessel in the human's forehead so we fucking left. So basically they hate us, but not really me specifically.

>>55855823
exactly

>>55855798

I'd be ok with dying if in the process I somehow ensured the vampires could never win. Problem is my followers would be on foot, and it would be super easy for the party to catch them. Even if they go in all different directions, the party can probably do a pretty wide sweep and kill them en route. I can't really get my followers mounts or anything without getting them from a party member and thus exposing myself.

File: 1500853031828.jpg (30 KB, 359x400)

30 KB JPG

>>55847622

File: How To Paladin, According(...).jpg (65 KB, 728x375)

65 KB JPG

>>55848333
>Why would anyone want to be a paladin? It seems so easy to lose your job that you worked so hard for.
Back in the days of 2E and earlier, paladin was a kit that applied over fightymans. If your stats were high enough, and you met all the other qualifications, you could be a paladin and get all the fightery goodness AND some cleric stuff on top of it for the low, low price of following an annoying code of ethics and some other strictures (like how many magic items you could carry). If you fucked up, you went back to being a fighter with 17 charisma, though you could atone and get it back.
Then came 3E, and they decided to keep the falling mechanic AND attempt to balance all the classes with each other AND remove all the previous stat/race/etc. strictures.

>>55852242
If the Predictor has time traveling powers then the answer still remains to let to keep going on track 1.

No matter what you do the Predictor would min-max it so that the most people die. This essentially means that 5 people are dying, no matter what. The best you can do is spare the one guy on track 2.

>>55847709
What the if the one guy on track 2 is white, but only two people arent white on track 1? How many arabs is a single white person worth to you?

>>55848008
pull the lever, then agree to join the union.

"to open the door to my treasure vault, simply knock, duplicating the sound of one hand clapping"

>>55857437
>The solution is to slap the door

>>55846435
I think I'm not seeing how this is different from the original
if you pull the switch one person dies. because the opaque box will be empty
if you don't, five people do, because the opaque box will be full of people
the predictor has never been wrong before and you have no reason to believe he will be wrong this time, so you can assume those options will hold true, right?

am I missing something?

>>55845421
I don't pull. It's just too risky.

>>55845572
In the end, you are simply on the private property of the biggest and richest owner.
Now gib tax or die for trespassing.
m-muh spooks

>>55846624
Only when its preventable.
One must balance empathy and selfishness, not assume one of either is absolute.

File: cachecopyImage1.jpg (176 KB, 949x1024)

176 KB JPG

>>55845421
I suplex the train.

>>55846624
Culpability is on the Predictor, not you. The only way you're morally responsible for their deaths is if you sprint down the track so that you can beat them to death before the trolley gets there.

>>55845421
This is literally just the prisoner's dilemma reformatted as a trolley problem. So I guess the answer depends on whether the other person is a neoclassical economist or not.

>>55847348
This is the best one

>>55851127
>>55857745
The paradox behind this one is that the predictor, who can see forward in time, has already set up the contents of the box based on your choice by the time you made your choice. So, there either are or aren't people in the box no matter what. Therefore, the best choice is to let the trolley go down track one, as it either kills zero instead of one, or five instead of six people. But by making what is objectively the right choice that would save more lives in either scenario, you end up, via the predictor putting people in the box based on your choice, causing the worse outcome to happen (five versus only one person dying). So do you chose option 1 which is guaranteed to kill less people than option 2, or option 2 which is also guaranteed to kill less people than option 1? The solution to this paradox (which originally was about money in a box in a game show if I remember right) is, in my opinion, that the transmission of information back in time (which is what sets up this whole paradox with the predictor) is inherently impossible and absurd, and absurd assumptions will lead to absurd outcomes, so it really isn't a paradox so much as an example of why regardless of physics, time travel (as conceived of in this scenario, with information being transmitted backward and affecting the same timeline without a new timeline branching off from that information changing things) is impossible.

>>55858762
Predicting your decision-making near-perfectly doesn't require time travel, though. It requires superhuman intelligence and capabilities, but not time travel. e.g. it could have secretly made a thousand copies of your mind at some point in the past and put them each through this problem in simulation. If it learns that 95% of the time you let the trolley continue on its path then it sticks five people in the box; if it learns that 95% of the time you switch tracks it doesn't put people in the box. That way, it can act according to your future decision-making without needing to travel through time.

Of course, in that specific example it'll still be wrong 5% of the time. But since this is a thought experiment, we can simply assume things like 'to a sufficiently advanced mind human action is completely deterministic and therefore perfectly predictable' without worrying about implementation.

>>55858762
This still sounds like overthinking it to me. if the predictor is infallible the outcome is guaranteed. I don't think it matters how he predicts it.

> scenario one: you pull the lever
the predictor knew you were going to pull the lever. he left the opaque box empty. pulling the lever kills one person in the glass box, and no people in the opaque box.

> scenario two: you do not pull the lever
the predictor knew you were not going to pull the lever. he put five people in the opaque box. not pulling the lever kills no people in the glass box, and five people in the opaque box.

> scenario three: you pick randomly
the predictor knew you were going to pick randomly. he put five people in the opaque box. pulling the lever kills six people, and not pulling it kills five. this is mainly to deter you from picking randomly, as it guarantees maximum carnage.

in every scenario you already know about the predictor's ability and behaviour. the predictor has never been wrong before and nothing about the question suggests he will be this time, which means you can guarantee the outcome based on your ultimate decision. pulling the lever will kill one person and not pulling it will kill five, just as the original problem. even if you change your mind at the last second you can assume he knew you would do that.

>>55859033
also this. if he's only 95% accurate that's still more than accurate enough to assume he'll have chosen correctly and base your decision on that. you're rolling the dice, sure, but since picking randomly *guarantees* the opaque box will have five people in it you are always better off picking deliberately, and you might as well base that on the most likely outcome: a correct prediction.

and if a correct prediction isn't the most likely outcome the whole setup is pointless.

>>55845421
I preserve my own life by not pulling the lever.

>>55859033
Bro, the actual thought experiment image was based on explicitly involved the transmission of information back in time; the point of thought experiments isn't to figure out ways to get around the parameters in a clever misinterpretation of what was meant, but to examine what implications any seeming paradoxes that may arise have for various philosophical positions, and to figure out ways to explain why seeming paradoxes might not actually be paradoxes if you look at things through a different (and presumably more correct) framework. This thought experiment/paradox isn't based on "predicting your decision-making near-perfectly," but on absolute prescience.

>>55847365
they all die

>>55859323
my entire exposure to the original thought experiment is its wikipedia page, but there it says if the predictor is truly infallible your outcomes are guaranteed and you should pick box B for the money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox#Causality_and_free_will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfIxMNm7roU

>>55852366
Not him but I don't give a fuck out about European border wars. That's their problem to sort out. NatSoc America is my only concern unless Jews and communists try to pull shit in Europe.

>>55859619
You realize that America passed the point-of-no-return for ethnonationalism decades ago, right? If nationalism is going to work in America, it has to be civic nationalism, and it's probably way too late for that as well. Best bet now is probably to try to strengthen state governments as much as possible for the inevitable collapse of the federal level.

File: 1485668718947.jpg (230 KB, 800x800)

230 KB JPG

>>55859709
>You realize that America passed the point-of-no-return for ethnonationalism decades ago, right?
That's what they told Hitler, then he kicked out everyone who moved into the country past WW1. If people come into this country under the government's power, then they can leave under the government's power.
>If nationalism is going to work in America, it has to be civic nationalism, and it's probably way too late for that as well.
Civic nationalism is just a slow decline into the abyss with people refusing to acknowledge that race and culture are heavily linked. NatSocs will never accept this lie of an ideology.
>Best bet now is probably to try to strengthen state governments as much as possible for the inevitable collapse of the federal level.
There's already a plan to do exactly that for some states. NW Front is a meme movement, but concentrating people together to actually make local and state government change is a good idea. I mean, it worked for the Commies, Leftists, and minorities in California.

>>55846514

He can't help it, he was born that way.

>The thread is neo-nazi circlejerk now.
When will /pol/ learn that just like in real life, nobody here likes them?

>>55847348

A+ delimma, will work into drinking conversation.

>>55847365
laughing so hard

>>55847365
FUCK ALL OF YOU THIS THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SERIOUS PHILOSOPHY

>>55856840

> How many arabs is a single white person worth to you?

You've never actually browsed /pol/, have you?

>>55858762
>The paradox behind this one is that the predictor, who can see forward in time
Nowhere is that mentioned.

>>55859619
So should Texas be independent, Mexican, or American? What about Louisiana, or, the Louisiana Purchase? Should that go back to France? Or the indigenous peoples that populated it before? Should the Quebecois declare independence -- or cede their land to the natives again? Is Florida Spanish?
>>55859774
>"Authoritarian" governments are all "Chaotic" or "Neutral," and have the strongest systems of laws
>"Lawful" governments are all "Libertarian" and have the loosest
??? ??????? ?? ??????????????

>>55855798
Source?

>>55860645
The chart is a swastika, anon.

>>55858045
You do 0 damage because trains are immune to gravity.

>>55848449
What about regions that've been owned by multiple peoples over the years due to migrations and conquests?

>>55848333
Because the kind of person who becomes a paladin is the kind of person who either A. Never thinks they will fall. or B. Are the kind of person who WON'T fall, no matter what happens.

When falling is a possibility, unless there's more to your Paladin's oath/requirement to their got than "Always try to do the best you can to achieve [goal]", you just have to avoid smartasses who think that philosophical quandaries matter.

File: 1464646271004.jpg (28 KB, 398x399)

28 KB JPG

>>55852366
Not him, but Sweden is much like any other country on the planet a fiction. In other words, it only "exists" as long as the people believe it exists. Welcome to the age of popular sovereignity (unlike previous eras where the borders of a realm were dictated by how far the influence of the monarch stretched). As such, there must be a people in the first place. This is why the French spent an entire century creating Frenchmen, enacting what retarded critics call "cultural genocide" (ever heard of the Picard language? Neither have most Frenchmen!). To answer the question whether Alsace goes to Germany or France, go ask the Alsatians. The Alsatians, among whom Müller is the most popular last name, will tell you with something that resembles a German accent that Alsace is and forever will be French.

As for Switzerland, consider that in the entirety of Swiss history there has been only one significant separatist movement, and that was in Jura. You see, Jura wanted to separate itself... from Romandie. They specifically wanted to remain within Switzerland, just as their separate Canton. The Swiss have developed over the centuries a strong sense of Swissness.

As for Ahmed from the desert, we simply need to answer how "Swedish" Ahmed is. He's a visible minority, that's one strike against him. He voluntarily follows a religion which espouses values that go directly against what Sweden has built itself into over the centuries, another strike against him. Furthermore, attempts to assimilate third world migrants (even Christian ones) in the nations of Europe has universally failed, to the point where even some politicians were forced to admit it had failed. Strike three.

In other words, it's "technically" possible for Ahmed to be assimilated into a full-on Swede. Though:
1. That's only a theoretical possibility that often doesn't work out in reality
2. It would involve him renouncing Islam, and preferably changing his name into Olaf while he's at it.

>>55861900

What about the reverse? What if a guy born in a country rejects certain aspects of its culture or adopts some wacky, non-mainstream religion?

>>55862003
That's an underappreciated liberty we have in the Free West: if you don't like something about your country, you're free to leave.

That said, I admit that's escalating a bit fast here. In the case of a native rejecting parts of the culture or converting to some obscure religion, things need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. What's especially important in this matter is to what extent the dominant culture and (folk) religion are subverted. A radical (no pun intended) example would be that one Swedish (or Norwegian?) teacher who converted to Islam, dedicated himself to preaching abotu how tolerant Islam is, and then ended up joining the Islamic State. A Swede converting to Buddhism (or whatever white people think passes for Buddhism) is fine because it's not an inherrently subversive element, unlike Islam which preaches bloody Jihad against the infidel.

This is why I unironically argue for study and understanding between religions and cultures: not in the left wing sense where I presume a certain outcome and dictate that all "conversation" must reach that conclusion and anything that opposes it is "hate speech", but precisely because I want to figure out which cultures and religions are compatible and which aren't.

tl;dr: Depends on the setting

>>55847476
it doesn't work, if you know who comes after you there's three posibilities:

A) You kill 4 people by not changing tracks

B) You change tracks and kill one person. Some other leverman doesn't change tracks, with an effective death toll of at least 5 people.

C) You change tracks and kill one person. The rest of the levermen all change tracks and kill someone. The result is the same 4 death as option A, but with an extra 3 people carrying the burden of deciding wether someone dies or lives. Plus the possible moral guilt of forcing them to make a choice.

>>55862911
But there's 5 people on the straight track.

>>55862976
...
Then it's shit problem and the obvious only solution is killing the one.

>>55847826
>dont pull lever
>get another death sentence
>spend 50 years in jail anyways doing appeals because inhumane guilty murderers shouldnt be dragged out back and shot immediately
>bang random insane women that send you letters
>make toilet drugs and wine while building your in house empire

finally my taxes would support me

>>55845572
There is no such thing as automatic NAP, it goes against what ancap is.

All naps will contracts between person X and Y.

PS:Before you ask, no I am not an ancap person

>>55848008
Pull lever, Fuck union

>>55852366

The borders are where they were agreed upon after the latest war. Not exactly rocket science.

As for those people: Fuck them until their country is strong enough to reclaim the land or they just move back to their own country.

>>55847103
>God
What a spook

>>55861900

Hurr durr everything is relative and nothing is real, everything is everything and nothing because I overthink things to an extreme extent and I R really smart.

NO.

Sweden is the land inhabited by the people who identify as Swedes, and whose ancestors fought in countless wars to define and keep their borders.

The only way Ahmed could have even a chance of becoming a Swede is if he married a Swedish girl, had kids with her, and then his kid had kids with a Swede as well. The resulting quadroon could possibly be accepted as a 'real Swede' if he acted real fucking Swedish.

>>55860936

Where did I talk about regions? If you refer to nationless peoples, well if the host-country these leeches suck from does not want to provide for them, fuck em.

File: loli spooks.jpg (49 KB, 613x771)

49 KB JPG

Man this thread is spooky.

The trolley is and always be irrelevant.

>>55864419
What if Ahmed bred with another immigrant, and his offspring also bred with the descendants of recent immigrants, but through cultural assimilation and being raised within the Swedish education system the obvious visible minority resultant acted real fucking Swedish?

>>55864712

behavior is genetic, not learned.

File: pol compass recent.png (17 KB, 480x400)

17 KB PNG

>>55860645
>So should Texas be independent, Mexican, or American?
American, we fought the civil war for a reason, anon.
>What about Louisiana, or, the Louisiana Purchase?
Why would it not be American?
>Or the indigenous peoples that populated it before?
They traded their land for beads or were conquered. They're quite lucky they even got reservations. Other races and countries, such as the Chinese, would not have been so merciful.
>Should the Quebecois declare independence -- or cede their land to the natives again?
Not my problem.
>Is Florida Spanish?
No. Use some common sense, Anon. The good thing about America is that the governments of each country agree perfectly fine with existing borders.
>"Authoritarian" governments are all "Chaotic" or "Neutral," and have the strongest systems of laws
>"Lawful" governments are all "Libertarian" and have the loosest
Authoritarian govs are lawful on the chart, anon. Learn how to read it.

I want to see a dungeon where the philosophical puzzles aren't about the PCs and their morals, but about selecting the correct answers the creator set them to.

So the idea would be about researching the BBEG's life to find out what he would likely have chosen, which would then force the PCs to choose options that some of the group would find morally repugnant, but would have to do anyway.

>>55864793
Lol.

File: 1506327600719.png (243 KB, 483x368)

243 KB PNG

>>55865266
>"Hmm, the inscription reads 'Are races inherently good or evil at birth?' What do you think me meant?"
>"Clearly that's bunk. Upbringing and cultural factors play aAAAAAIIIIII-"
>trapdoor opens under the party

>>55858045
Is that tokugawa era Za Warudo?

File: SUPLEX.jpg (524 KB, 1000x1200)

524 KB JPG

>>55865557
It's a Final Fantasy VI thing. One of the bosses is a train, and one of the characters can suplex enemies.

>>55852366

I'm not even sure what you're going for here. I assume you're implying the following greentext:

>It's hard, so don't do it
Not an argument. Breaking away from British sovereignty and creating various Anglo states was hard, or nearly impossible, and yet still succeeded. Determining borders has historically been difficult, but ongoing conflicts are rare (except re: international maritime law, which is another story entirely).

>There are borderline cases which make it difficult to determine exactly where one grouping ends, so there's no grouping, just give up

The border between red and orange could arguably be either red or orange, and has a similar border with slightly-more-red and slightly-more-orange, and so on and so forth. But orange and red are clearly useful semantic concepts. The same goes for Swiss-German and German, for Swiss-Italian and Italian, etc etc.

Self-determination and cultural preservation do not require that all nations follow the same scheme, either. If Helvetia wants to remain quadcultural, let them. There's little to no danger there and it's their thing. The problem is if Achmed wants to make Helvetia an Islamic state, or if eg. Muslims outnumbered native Romansch people to the extent that the Romansch are now deprived of resources and opportunities which it was the entire purpose of their state-government complex to provide for them. In that case, the state-government complex obviously has to go (alongside the newcomers).

>>55860072
Why would you expect serious philosophical debate on a somalian woodworking clipboard?

>>55866708
The problem with this is that arbitrary semantic distinctions like those between "red" and "orange" don't have any sort of corresponding moral dimension. Distinctions between countries does, at least they do once you start forcefully expelling people because they don't fit in, and it introduces the complications of why the distinctions, which are difficult to make in the first place, ought to be made in the first place. That's what you need to show.

There's a strong impression here that there's an appeal to a kind of might-makes-right type of thinking when it comes to founding nation-states: The United States forcefully broke free from British control, so they're not British anymore and that's fine. But should we say the same for Catalonia, which doesn't want to be Spanish anymore? What some people in Catalonia want to stay Spanish? Which is the right group to expel?
>If Helvetia wants to remain quadcultural, let them. There's little to no danger there and it's their thing. The problem is if Achmed wants to make Helvetia an Islamic state...
And who is responsible for determining at what point a minority becomes a threat? Countries aren't as homogeneous as you suggest when you say "Helvetia wants to remain quadcultural." What if Helvetia becomes divided on that? Imagining that you can "solve" this by just going, "all right, everybody break it up into little groups of people with similar cultures, and stay there while I figure out who's OK to mix with who" is naïve and ahistorical.

>>55864419
>Hurr durr everything is relative and nothing is real
That's not what I meant by "fiction", you double nigger. I don't mean that Sweden isn't real, I mean that the concept of Sweden is a construct. It's not something that's readily apparant through observation, there isn't something we can point to and clearly say "That's a Sweden" in the same way we can clearly observe a rock or even a mathematical equation.

>Sweden is the land inhabited by the people who identify as Swedes
>identify as
Now do you get why I used the term "fiction"? They aren't "genetically Swedish", as if there's some kind of gene that stops being a thing at its borders with Norway and Finland, it's all about identification. That's. exactly. my. point. That's why, when that anon asked whether Alsace was French or German, I told him to ask the Alsatians.

>>55852222
You don't pull the lever, you've got a 100% chance of killing 5 people.

You do pull the lever and you've got a 100% chance of killing one person, a 50% chance of killing 5 additional people (note this as 2.5 people), a 25% chance of killing a third person (.25 people) a 25% chance of killing 5 people (1.25 people), a 12.5% chance of killing a fourth person and a 12.5% chance of killing 5 additional people (.675 people).

So the choice is really between killing 5 people or 5.75 people.

Don't throw the lever.

>>55845632
>spooks

Reminder that Max Stirner's philosophy is more destructive to any propertarian ideology than it is to anything else.

>>55864712

NOT Swedish because he is not part of the phenotype

>>55864712
>>55868867

Also, in Sweden people live in segregated areas, immigrants mainly go to immigrant schools and Swedes mainly go to Swede schools, and this looks like it will get much worse rather than better. So he won't become Swedish by going to school in Sweden.

>>55865280

There is quite a bit of evidence that suggests behaviour is very genetically influenced.

>>55845820
How does the NAP ensure against feuds?

>>55860072

Fuck you it's about race relations and borders now

>>55868567

The distinctions are based on appearance, behaviour and culture. Since genetics affect all these to a high degree, they are very connected. Drawing distinctions between different peoples are hardly arbitrary. Do you think stereotypes come from thin air and are always false? Why does affirmative action exist? Why does blacks underperform academically in every nation where they have a presence, no matter how long they've been there and even if it is their own nation? Why do asians often overperform? Genetic influence is real and important. You can't explain away everything with 'socio-economic factors', that has been debunked a thousand times.

>>55868567

Regarding Catalonia-France:

They are Spanish until they aren't. If they break away, they are Catalonian. Genetically they are probably the same as Spanish people, so they are genetically Spanish (since Spanish is the historically used term for these peoples).

It doesn't have to be that hard, anon.

File: 1448050105857.jpg (52 KB, 595x720)

52 KB JPG

>>55869037
>Regarding Catalonia-France
>Catalonia-France

>>55868567

>"all right, everybody break it up into little groups of people with similar cultures, and stay there while I figure out who's OK to mix with who"

This is literally what people do naturally though if given freedom of movement. Look at the US and Sweden, in most places similar ethnicities clump together. Where they don't, it's mainly because of economic factors.

>>55861900
>Furthermore, attempts to assimilate third world migrants (even Christian ones) in the nations of Europe has universally failed, to the point where even some politicians were forced to admit it had failed.
How come this always fails in Europe, but seems to work fairly well in the US? I know Muslims don't like to assimilate anywhere, but I went to school with a bunch of second generation east Asian and Indian immigrants and they were all white as hell.

>>55868635

Point being regarding the rock? It is just muddying the waters with the point of making the issue more opaque than it needs to be.

And it is completely possible to single out a Swede from a Finn genetically, a quick googling will confirm that for you. Naturally, the people will bleed together at the borders a bit, but that is a small part of a whole. You wouldn't say that 'red' and 'yellow' are the same colour just because they bleed together when you open up the ms-paint colour mixer.

>>55869059

Yeah yeah, I'm tired. >>55869089

>>55869059
>Implying they aren't Frankish half-breeds

>>55869089

We have literally zero issues with eastern and south-eastern asians in Sweden, they assimilate perfectly, learn the language, work and commit no crime. Their culture meshes well with ours as well because it isn't retarded.

File: 064.gif (232 KB, 680x667)

232 KB GIF

>>55865557
It's a pretty famous scene for the reason that other anon said

>>55869089
Because Mexico is a country that borders the United States, has roughly the same values and damn near the same fucking constitution.

>East Asian
They do well everywhere
>Indian
America gets the smart ones, the human filth goes to Britain.

>tfw rolled a nat 1 on my ontology skill check
>never even touch the lever

>>55845572
Pull every lever. Arm the newly freed proletariat. Eat the rich. Collectivize the trolley infrastructure.

>>55858762
Current physics argues that you can.move particles back in time, but not on a scale to do anything meaningful.

>>55847826
>pull lever
>mistrial after death
>witnesses exonerate you after sparing 12 humans and only killing one gremlin.

>>55854612
Easy
Every answer can be considered correct if you finagle it right. The correct answer is therefore E) 100%, but since you physically cannot chose the correct answer, you must choose C).

>>55860645
It maps (left->evil), (right->good), (authoritarian->lawful), (libertarian->chaotic)

Really though, theyre all neutral evil
Not that it matters, 2-axis alignment is a sham

>>55869485

That's fucking clever. Not kidding.

>>55868997
>Since genetics affect[sic] all these to a high degree, they are very connected
>implying genetics effect culture
I think that's a claim you're going to have to put up some evidence for, Cleetus. It sounds an awful lot like the Nazis' claims on Expressionist art being the result of "degenerate" genes. Nothing from Infowars or Stormfront, please: I'd rather you didn't insult my intelligence.
>Why does blacks
>Drawing distinctions... are hardly arbitrary.
Quoted without comment.
>>55869037
>Genetically they are probably the same as Spanish people
Is the argument based on culture, or genetics?
>>55869060
Appeal to nature does not justify the moral dimension of inhumane and irrational behavior like categorically expelling people because their noses look different from yours.

>>55845421
I'd pull the level, i won't risk my skin to save people i don't even know

>>55872989
never*
damn

>>55845707
kek

>>55852282
Give me the rusty metal skull gun

>>55845421
Somebody explain the trolley problem to me.
People act like pulling the lever and killing less people is the wrong answer, but how is taking the path that leads to less death a bad choice?
Seems like bullshit to me

>>55873500
The trolley problem was invented by Phillipa Foot (real name, I'm pretty sure she was a professor or something) as a response to utilitarianism, or the umbrella term for ethical theories which prioritize maximized "utility," a.k.a. happiness, fulfillment, etc. Foot came up with the thought experiment and a few of its variants (like the one with the fat man on the bridge one must push to stop the trolley) to show some certain blunt realities about consequentialist, utilitarian ethics. A consequentialist doesn't care as much about the MEANS in ethical situations as they do about the ENDS, or the consequences.

A believer in virtue ethics or a deontological system of ethics, who cares about ethical means, would not pull the lever, and would (at most) be guilty at most of four counts of negligence. A utilitarian, however, would pull the lever and murder the one man tied to the tracks, as this would be the optimal way to maximize utility. It forces consequentialists to own up to the fact that, put in this situation, their ethical system forces them to commit murder, and essentially boils horrible ethical decisions to addition and subtraction. Something like that, anyway. It's supposed to be an uncomfortable thought. You could probably just google it.

>>55848333
> Why would anyone want to be a paladin? It seems so easy to lose your job that you worked so hard for.

You don't 'want' to be a paladin. It's a calling. There's some great injustice or wrongs being committed and you realize that if you don't do something about it no one will. So you leave behind the comfortable life you've built for yourself and your family, leaving them enough gold to get by and taking your old sword and armour from your soldiering days.

And when you and allies you've gathered over the course of your adventures face down the great evil at the end of the story, he tries to present you some sob story or moral quandary but you feel your conviction unwavering and behind it the conviction of your God and you stave in his skull. Other people, weaker people, might have accepted clemency but you know in your heart of hearts that justice has been served.

So you go home, put your sword back up on the mantle, and live out the rest of your days content that you were able to make the world a brighter place.

>>55873770
>It's supposed to be an uncomfortable thought.

It's not though.

>>55874324
>killing somebody isn't an uncomfortable thought
So you're edgy or a psychopath, gotcha.

Removing means from the equation of ethics doesn't bother you even a little bit? Most people surveyed who indicated they would pull the lever reconsider when the second path is replaced with a fat man on a bridge they'd be able to push into the path of the trolley, stopping it. Does that bother you as well? Why? What about the relative guilt of the parties involved? Would you murder an innocent for four criminals? Unrepentant ones? Would you kill a member of your family for those people? The uncomfortableness is supposed to make you consider: is the value of murder, of the intentional taking of a human life, just another quantity?

>>55874380
Pulling a lever is indirectly causing the death of the person on the alternative track. Pushing the fat man is directly causing his death. While the ends might seem the same, the legal standing of the active individual is very different in each case.

>>55874417
If the hinge of your ethical system lies in pushing a man to his death versus pulling a lever, to the same effect, then your ethical reasoning is inconsistent.
It's an understandable position, don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to condemn you here or your point of view, just to explain why it exists and what it's for. The trolley problem and its variants force utilitarians to cop to the fact that pushing the fat man is required for them to act consistently according to their ethical standards.

>>55874380
>>55874324
>>55873770

Well i would say utilitarianism doesn't boil down to addition or subtraction. It depends on the information known.

So example 1 the OG trolley: 1 death vs 4. and nothing else is know. You obviously pull the lever and kill 1 vs 4.
>On the track is Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (look him up if you have 2 but he saved the earth) on the other track is 4 child rapists who have been lobotomized. Do you still pull the lever to kill 1 or let the 4 die?

>>55874480
My personal ethics involve the degree to which I am legally culpable. Thus, even if I were a utilitarian I would have to aknowlege that the outcomes of these two scenarios are not the same.

>>55874512
I DID say it was an umbrella term, but generally speaking maximizing utility involves maximizing human lives. Mill argued that lives full of "higher" pleasures were worth more than those full of "lower" ones, but the definition of these things is hazy and arguably arbitrary.
>It depends on the information known.
Again, umbrella term. Some versions don't care what you know.
>>55874561
If your personal ethics change when you change countries, that's fine. It's not fine, however, if you want to use that system as a principle for establishing actual laws in the first place, because of the obvious contradiction involved there.

>>55846958
It depends if the DM believes in a moral imperative or tends utilitarian.

File: 1370195367028.gif (199 KB, 700x687)

199 KB GIF

>>55858045
damn straight

>>55875334
I should really finish the thread before I post

>>55869175
>>55875334
>>55875348
The image so nice we posted it twice.

>>55874480
pushing a fat man has never stopped a trolley.

The trolley problem isn't a moral dilemma about whether it's acceptable to commit murder in order to save a life. It's a sleight-of-hand trick to try and make people OK with the idea of murdering a person framed as low-status (fat).

It's no different from the classic "would you suck a dick for a million dollars". Answer "yes", and suddenly you're a gay prostitute.

>>55875468
And even if a fat man's body could stop the trolley, the average American could probably take a third option and sacrifice him or herself to stop the trolley, thus murdering no one while also saving 5 lives.

>>55875468
To be fair, there's not a lot I wouldn't do for one million dollars.

File: wanna feel me up-.jpg (137 KB, 479x792)

137 KB JPG

>>55847864

/tg/

>>55848133
'Mixing cultures is only good when it's mine mixing into yours.'

File: 1504935575530.jpg (146 KB, 1080x1316)

146 KB JPG

>>55859485

Why does it always say "pull" the lever when the character in the drawing pushes the lever forward?

>>55875887
Wait... I have an ahegao picture of her.

>>55876502
>her

>>55875533
> the average American could probably
They wouldn't, though, so that's a moot point.

Destroy the trains.

File: FF6GhostTrain.png (3 KB, 240x208)

3 KB PNG

>>55845572
I grapple the train

>>55874417
>Pulling the lever isn't the same as pushing the fat man.

The only difference is the mechanism. If you pull the lever, you are directly killing someone.

>>55875729
Gay whore.

>>55875468
>pushing a fat man has never stopped a trolley.
Right, and nobody ever ties people to different tracks with a lever in between them. It's a hypothetical explanation you stupid git.
>It's a sleight-of-hand trick to try and make people OK with the idea of murdering a person framed as low-status (fat).
No, it's not. Don't be an idiot.

>>55883386
Trolley have changed tracks at points, that is in fact why the points were built in the first place. They have however hit, and not been stopped by, fat people.

>>55883482
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. It's a thought experiment, which is not necessarily tied down (pun not intended) to real situations which have happened before.