The evil mastermind (alignment thread)

[GoC]

The circumstances have changed. The original scenario is spoilered below.

You are insert-really-badass-heroic-dude-here and have just stormed into the lair of an evil overlord. Unfortunately you find yourself surrounded by one thousand of his supersoldiers and he has 100 hostages!

The evil overlord says that he may exchange some hostages if you give yourself up (he will then kill you). He gives you four options:

1. Just walk away. You're a hero and your life is worth more than theirs. You'll just work extra hard saving lives to make up for it.
2. You will shoot 75 of them going right to left. The rest are set free.
3. He will roll a die and there's a 1 in 6 chance of him letting them all go free. Otherwise he will execute them all. If you choose this option you lose your chance of killing the guards and escaping with the prisoners.
4. He will roll a die for each person there and there's a 1 in 5 chance for each to go free. You must execute each of the condemned.

If you try and fight then you estimate that as you're one badass dude you have a 1 in 10 chance of killing the mastermind's 1000 guards of doom and escapng with the prisoners (though an unknown number might die in the escape). The mastermind will always escape, always keeps his word and will stop killing after this final act of evilness.

The original scenario:

You and a band of 100 other people have been capture by an evil mastermind.
The mastmind singles you out and gives you the following choices:
1. You will shoot 75 of them going right to left. The rest are set free.
2. He will roll a die and there's a 1 in 6 chance of him letting them all go free. Otherwise he will execute them all. If you choose this option you lose your chance of killing the guards and escaping with the prisoners.
3. He will roll a die for each person there and there's a 1 in 5 chance for each to go free. You must execute each of the condemned.

In all of these cases you will be set free but if you resist he'll kill all of them and you.

You estimate that as you're one badass dude you have a 1 in 10 chance of killing the mastermind's ten thousand guards of doom and escapng with the prisoners (though an unknown number might die in the escape).

Which would you choose? Which is good/evil/neutral?

EDIT: Most alignment threads are very vague so I thought I'd create one with things clearly stated.

[Voyager_I]

The same as in Solo's thread, this doesn't really fall into alignment issues. It depends on a character's personality at a level more specific than "Good" or "Evil". A good character in particular could make an argument for any of the above options. An Evil character might be more likely just to kill however many were necessary and be on his way, since they get to survive, but they could also come up with their own reasons for each course of action.

[AKA_Bait]

Yeah. Any of them could be good or evil depending upon why that specific character would pick them. More information is needed. Do you know these other people? Do they mean anything to you?

Personally, since you asked which I would choose, assuming these people are total strangers, I would put it to a vote among the prisoners and go with however it came out.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Personally, since you asked which I would choose, assuming these people are total strangers, I would put it to a vote among the prisoners and go with however it came out.

Under reasonable assumptions about their rationality they would choose 3, which will save about 20 of them and have you execute the rest. (A good workout if it is to be done with an axe.)

[GoC]

Under reasonable assumptions about their rationality they would choose 3, which will save about 20 of them and have you execute the rest. (A good workout if it is to be done with an axe.)

While it is the most rational choice 80% of them won't support it so it'll probably be the least popular one.

[AKA_Bait]

Under reasonable assumptions about their rationality they would choose 3, which will save about 20 of them and have you execute the rest. (A good workout if it is to be done with an axe.)

Indeed. Either that or the 10% chance of sucess with them all escaping. I'd be ok with either. I just wouldn't be ok with choosing for them.


While it is the most rational choice 80% of them won't support it so it'll probably be the least popular one.

Well no, since they would all probably think they are one of the 20% to go free.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

While it is the most rational choice 80% of them won't support it so it'll probably be the least popular one.

It gives the highest probability for survival so they will support it ex ante, which is the time the vote will be held, since that is where the decision has to be taken.

The first one will be voted down by the 80 people farthest to the right, since they will come to an end with certainty.

The second one only offers a 16.666... % chance of survival compared to the 20 % offered by choice number 3.

The badass solution offers the worst odds.

[Voyager_I]

Fighting out isn't an especially viable option, since you have better odds of success with more safety for the escapees by simply rolling the die for all of them. That might actually be the best option, out of all of them. One will obviously be voted down by the eighty people on the right. Three gives you the best chances of individual survival, but the chances of you, your wife, your kids, your best friend, his wife and kids, etc. all surviving are essentially negligible. The slightly higher chance of death presented by option Two would probably be very preferable to most people than a 1/5 chance to struggle through life after watching 80% of the people you know and love being executed.

(The assumptions here are obvious and I, along with everyone else who has read this post, am aware of them. You don't have to say anything, we already know.)

[VanBuren]

It gives the highest probability for survival so they will support it ex ante, which is the time the vote will be held, since that is where the decision has to be taken.

The first one will be voted down by the 80 people farthest to the right, since they will come to an end with certainty.

The second one only offers a 16.666... % chance of survival compared to the 20 % offered by choice number 3.

The badass solution offers the worst odds.

Yeah, but... it's badass.

Make that one a million to one, then it'll work for sure.

[GoC]

Hmm...
Very interesting.
I've modified the original conditions.
Option 1 now kills 75 people.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Hmm...
Very interesting.
I've modified the original conditions.
Option 1 now kills 75 people.

Yes, now things are getting more interesting.


Yeah, but... it's badass.

Make that one a million to one, then it'll work for sure.

:smallcool:

[AKA_Bait]

The badass solution offers the worst odds.

It has the worst odds, but the most emotional appeal.

"If I'm probably going to go down anyway, I'd rather go down fighting." is not an uncommon sentiment by any means.

[Voyager_I]

Good people in particular might feel guilty simply for surviving so easily. However, satisfying your newfound martyr complex doesn't really justify recklessly endangering everyone else to such a degree.

I don't know how much of a difference going from 80 to 75 makes. It'll still be voted down by default until it's 51-49.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

It has the worst odds, but the most emotional appeal.

"If I'm probably going to go down anyway, I'd rather go down fighting." is not an uncommon sentiment by any means.

Option 2 offers better chances for survival of the voters and the badass option risks your life.

If you care about the lives of the other captives, want to save them all, but still want to be a badass the sensible thing would be to go for 2 and then kill the doom guards after the prisoners have been brought to safety or are being executed.

[Mewtarthio]

Fighting out isn't an especially viable option, since you have better odds of success with more safety for the escapees by simply rolling the die for all of them. That might actually be the best option, out of all of them. One will obviously be voted down by the eighty people on the right. Three gives you the best chances of individual survival, but the chances of you, your wife, your kids, your best friend, his wife and kids, etc. all surviving are essentially negligible. The slightly higher chance of death presented by option Two would probably be very preferable to most people than a 1/5 chance to struggle through life after watching 80% of the people you know and love being executed.

Option Three provides a (relatively) good possibility for at least one of your loved ones to survive. Additionally, Option Three is safer for any one particular loved one. Option Two reduces the odds for everyone and throws everything into an "all-or-nothing" gambit.

Of course, from a strictly pragmatic perspective, Option One is best, since one-in-four prisoners survive (as opposed to one-in-five for Option Three and probably nobody for Options Two and Four).


Option 2 offers better chances for survival of the voters and the badass option risks your life.

If you care about the lives of the other captives, want to save them, but still want to be a badass the sensible thing would be to go for 2 and then kill the doom guards after the prisoners have been brought to safety or are being executed.

Unlike the other options, Option Two explicitly states that you can never go back and fight. I'm not sure why; maybe you're bound and drugged during the roll.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I don't know how much of a difference going from 80 to 75 makes. It'll still be voted down by default until it's 51-49.

Of course, but AKA_Bait is now in a position where his democratic solution results in more casualties than his dictatorial decision. That is always good fun. :smallamused:

[AKA_Bait]

Option 2 offers better chances for survival of the voters and the badass option risks your life.

If you care about the lives of the other captives, want to save them, but still want to be a badass the sensible thing would be to go for 2 and then kill the doom guards after the prisoners have been brought to safety or are being executed.

I'm simply talking about the outcome of the vote here. Each the group might prefer to go down fighting than simply submit, regardless of odds, is all I'm saying with that. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making the decision for others. My own life chances for survival wouldn't come into my decision and I would abstain from the vote, since in all but one scenario I'm safe.

[hamishspence]

Traditionally good guys do not like being offered "deals" like that. How they resolve the problem has as much to do with personality as alignment.

The Stubborn option: "No way am I taking that deal, I will fight you"
The Bluff option: "I don't think you can take us all without major casualties, let us loose or else"
The Ally but not Evil option: "Counteroffer, you let them all go, and I will lend my great skills to your cause to do anything for you that I do not find repugnant"

You can probably think of others, depending on the confidence and diplomatic skills of the hero, as well as whether he is prepared to do Evil acts in the hope of a Good end to the situation.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Unlike the other options, Option Two explicitly states that you can never go back and fight. I'm not sure why; maybe you're bound and drugged during the roll.

I think it was included to ensure that you would not renege on your choice after the die roll. Otherwise you could try option 2 and if that failed try to be a badass afterwards. :smallwink:

[GoC]

Unlike the other options, Option Two explicitly states that you can never go back and fight. I'm not sure why; maybe you're bound and drugged during the roll.

It's the smart thing to do to tie up the badass adventurer in case things go south.


Each the group might prefer to go down fighting than simply submit, regardless of odds, is all I'm saying with that.
Remember that they have next to no chance of surviving without you.

Hmm...
I think I should add an extra option there...
I'll let this debate carry on for a bit longer first though.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I'm simply talking about the outcome of the vote here. Each the group might prefer to go down fighting than simply submit, regardless of odds, is all I'm saying with that.

I assumed that they would be dead weight and you like the badass sheep herder.


I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making the decision for others. My own life chances for survival wouldn't come into my decision and I would abstain from the vote, since in all but one scenario I'm safe.


I was not necessarily trying to make things this personal for you. :smallsmile:
Although, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the situation after the change to option 1 resulting in the democratic equilibrium being sub-optimal if measured in average survival rate. :smallwink:

[AKA_Bait]

Remember that they have next to no chance of surviving without you.


Oh I know. They would be informed that whatever their decision I'm abiding by it too. They would have my help if they chose option 3 and they would know it.

[GoC]

The Bluff option: "I don't think you can take us all without major casualties, let us loose or else"
When I said they were captured I pictured it as all the captives up against a wall and all the guards in body armor with automatic weapons. You know, typical guards?


The Ally but not Evil option: "Counteroffer, you let them all go, and I will lend my great skills to your cause to do anything for you that I do not find repugnant"
This evil mastermind would put you on a mission to further increase his power and enslave millions, yada, yada...
Are you sure this is even a viable option? Presumably he will have some means to hold you to the deal.

[Voyager_I]

I think the hypothesis has been experimentally proven enough times by now...

Godwin's Law of Alignment Discussion Threads
Any attempt to discuss the moral implications of potential or actual actions taken under given conditions in the context of the Dungeons ad Dragons alignment system, no matter how thoroughly and precisely the options and circumstances might be described, will inevitably be derailed by suggestions breaking the established constraints of the scenario and leading to a repetitive argument that is, at best, tangentially related to the actual question. This effect stacks with the actual Godwin's Law.



Getting back to the subject, I think part of option Two's appeal is that it provides the best chance of absolute victory. Nobody likes triage.

Even with the adjusted numbers, though, it still boils down to an issue of individuals rather than alignments. Saying "My alignment forces me to fight my way out because I am never supposed to let the bad guy do anything, even though many of the civilians will probably die anyways and I the villain has offered me a much safer way of accomplishing the same thing without any unnecessary casualties" is Lawful Stupid. If you want to be martyrized that badly, you can always come back later. Certainly, some characters might prefer death over submitting to that kind of mind game, but that's a matter of personality rather than them being Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic.

[Talic]

Well, the options are all decent. Assuming a vote, this is how it would break down.

Option 1 - 25% of the vote. This offers the last 25 people a 100% survival rate.

Option 2 - 16.67% survival. Might get 2% of the vote, for the "suicide cult" crowd, those that believe misery loves company.

Option 3 - 20% survival chance per person. 73% of the vote, as the best option for the first 75 people.

Thus, correct, option 1 cannot be chosen (the lowest death rate that would make it an option would be 66 people, with option 2 and 3 being equally viable), and Option 3 should be.

However, this is an evil guy, and likely is NOT being honest. 10% survival chance guaranteed is better than a 20% by a guy who's likely just watching you twist in the wind before killing you.

The illusion maintained when a bad guy gives you a choice is that you have to take one of the choices offered. He sets the rules. In this instance, it's almost always better to make your own rules, and remove absolute control from the hand of the evil genius. As long as it's in the hands of someone who has no compunctions capturing and killing people for amusement and torture, then.. Well, would you trust such a person's restraint?

[Voyager_I]

Because it's clearly and definitely established in the scenario?

[Dark Tira]

I vote for option 3. If someone is going to slaughter innocents then I want him to work for it and option 3 makes the evil mastermind roll a d5 100 times compared to a single d6 or no roll at all. Maybe if he repeats this scenario a lot he'll end up with carpal tunnel.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I vote for option 3. If someone is going to slaughter innocents then I want him to work for it and option 3 makes the evil mastermind roll a d5 100 times compared to a single d6 or no roll at all. Maybe if he repeats this scenario a lot he'll end up with carpal tunnel.

So you hope that he will fall ill?
Sounds a bit spiteful and vindictive.... and thus EVIL (or at least on the road to the dark side)! :smalltongue:

[GoC]

First post updated!
Now which would you choose? Which is good/evil/neutral?

[snoopy13a]

The circumstances have changed. The original scenario is spoilered below.

You are insert-really-badass-heroic-dude-here and have just stormed into the lair of an evil overlord. Unfortunately you find yourself surrounded by one thousand of his supersoldiers and he has 100 hostages!

The evil overlord says that he may exchange some hostages if you give yourself up (he will then kill you). He gives you four options:

1. Just walk away. You're a hero and your life is worth more than theirs. You'll just work extra hard saving lives to make up for it.

Average lives saved 0. I'd think this would be neutral on the good/evil axis. This may actually end up being the optimal action if you save more then 25 lives down the road.

2. You will shoot 75 of them going right to left. The rest are set free.

You are sacrificing your life to save 25 people. Since you are under duress, I don't think you'd be responsible for the deaths of the other 75. I'd call this a good action.

3. He will roll a die and there's a 1 in 6 chance of him letting them all go free. Otherwise he will execute them all. If you choose this option you lose your chance of killing the guards and escaping with the prisoners.

You are sacrificing your for a 16.6% chance to save 100 people. On average you'd save 16 or so people. I'd call this a good action but not an optimal one.

4. He will roll a die for each person there and there's a 1 in 5 chance for each to go free. You must execute each of the condemned.

You are sacrificing your life to save on average 20 people. Again, since you'd be under duress you wouldn't be responsible for your actions. This is a good action but not an optimal one

5. If you try and fight then you estimate that as you're one badass dude you have a 1 in 10 chance of killing the mastermind's 1000 guards of doom and escapng with the prisoners (though an unknown number might die in the escape). The mastermind will always escape and always keeps his word.

You are trying to save the day and on average are saving 0-10 people if succesful. This is a good act. It actually can be the most optimal good act as one can consider any future lives saved towards the saved lives total.

The other good options have guaranteed death while this one has a 10% option of survival. For instance, if as a high level hero, you'd save 1000 more lives in your lifetime (assuming you survive the encounter) then your lives saved on average is increased from 0-10 to 100-110.

If future lives saved (assuming success) is 250 or more then option 4 is the most optimal good action. However, in this situation, option 1 is more optimal as it does not have the 90% decrease due to risk of death.


However, one must take into account that the evil mastermind can cause more evil in the future. Choosing to walk away and recruiting an army to take down the evil mastermind could actually be the best decision in the long run. I wouldn't call any of the possible options as evil. An evil option would be to beg to join the evil overload and going out to take more hostages.

Most optimal solutions

If future lives saved mark is less then 25: Option 2

If future lives saved mark is greater then 25: Option 1


Good solutions: All but Option 1

Neutral solution: Option 1

Evil solution: None

Top good solution:

Either Option 2 or Option 5 dependent on how many future lives you would save on average. The cutoff for option 5 being better is 250 future lives saved.

[Voyager_I]

The same as in Solo's thread, this doesn't really fall into alignment issues. It depends on a character's personality at a level more specific than "Good" or "Evil". A good character in particular could make an argument for any of the above options. An Evil character might be more likely just to kill however many were necessary and be on his way, since they get to survive, but they could also come up with their own reasons for each course of action.

:amused:

This post has more than ten characters.

[RukiTanuki]

As the Giant so masterfully put it, it's a shell game. The intent of the game is to get you to play by the rules.

I have no reason to believe the mastermind is telling the truth, or that he'll go through with anything he's promised. He's under no compulsion to actually let anyone go free. If he's twisted enough to do this, he's easily twisted enough for the double-cross of killing all "survivors" once he's forced me to do the dirty work myself, revealing the futility of my actions just before sending me off to death as well.

He's doing this to twist the knife into my moral compass, to see what I really consider important. The second I start plotting numbers, trying to calculate the lesser evil, I've lost and he's won.

I attack the son of a b----. :smallbiggrin:


EDIT: Wait, the scenario changed. Now he "always keeps his word." Disregarding the fact that I have no way to verify that, he's still doing this for the thrill of watching me choose. More importantly, I have a chance to end the killing now, and I won't look away from it. I still attack.

EDIT2: Huh? Alignment? Okay... given my "risk vs. reward" outlook on morality, good people are likely to choose what helps the most, even if they're put at risk. For a PC that could theoretically take on 1000 enemies, that might mean fighting. For a commoner who wouldn't take one step before getting skewerd, that might mean leaving and warning those who CAN stop the BBEG. Everyone's getting the short end of the stick, everyone has something to feel bad about, but Good is pretty much about doing the best thing you can do, even when it sucks to do so.

[GoC]

I attack the son of a b----. :smallbiggrin:

The mastermind will always escape, always keeps his word and will stop killing after this final act of evilness.
textextext

[Voyager_I]

The criteria! They're right there! They aren't hiding, they're being actively thrown at you! Why can't this ever work?!

[Talic]

The criteria! They're right there! They aren't hiding, they're being actively thrown at you! Why can't this ever work?!

The villian could be perfectly honest, have a OCD obsession about washing his hands, and have had a cat named fluffy as a child...

That doesn't mean that the hero in this quandary KNOWS any of this. With only available information, the hero has no way of knowing this entirely unrealistic villain's chronic obsession with honesty.

[Voyager_I]

It's stated information in a hypothetical thought experiment. Therefore, you do know it. Unnecessarily adding broad variables to an already fuzzy type of scenario will make this even more impossible.

[Talic]

It's stated information in a hypothetical thought experiment. Therefore, you do know it. Unnecessarily adding broad variables to an already fuzzy type of scenario will make this even more impossible.

It's stated that the villain will be true to his word, which states what WILL happen.

It does not make any mention of hero knowledge, other than the choices provided, and the estimate the hero himself makes. Therefore, by the challenge, there is no text stating he/she does know it, and no reason he should assume it.

The hypothetical thought experiment is in all actuality, essentially a simple math/preference problem, which has already been fully explored. Thus, the only avenue left is to analyze the thought experiment, and realize the entirely unrealistic (and thus useless) nature of the experiment.

1st, you have a villain that is capable, evidently, of acting with relative impunity, with no outside corrective force, who will agree to stop his evil ways, evidently "shown the light" by his random slaughter of a few dozen peasants.

2nd, you have someone who is evidently capable of capturing the hero, willing to force a moral dilemma, and yet, completely bound by integrity, himself.

There are others, I'm sure, but several of the villain's traits don't mesh with reality in any way, shape or form.

[GoC]

The hypothetical thought experiment is in all actuality, essentially a simple math/preference problem, which has already been fully explored.
It isn't a simple maths problem, as you'd know if you've read some of the posts in this thread. And I changed the original circustances so it hasn't been anywhere near "fully explored".


There are others, I'm sure, but several of the villain's traits don't mesh with reality in any way, shape or form.
They are however standard BBEG traits. Amazing that fiction and reality don't coincide, right?:smallamused:

[RukiTanuki]

The criteria! They're right there! They aren't hiding, they're being actively thrown at you! Why can't this ever work?!

In this case, I opened up a day's worth of interesting forum links (as I tend to) and spent a few hours perusing them. In the time I took, the original post was radically altered. I posted, read the things posted since I first opened the thread, saw that the post changed, and attempted to amend my response.


The mastermind will always escape, always keeps his word and will stop killing after this final act of evilness.

Apparently, I didn't edit the post enough, as upon further inspection, the new post goes out of its way shoehorn the situation into one specific question: Is the badass hero's life worth twenty or thirty lives of his fellow man? That's an interesting moral question. However, the trappings of the scenario are just awkward.

With 100 people on the verge of being slaughtered, the only* option presented is to sit still until their intended murderer states his demands. Under no conditions* can I stop his evil act; the options presented* only alter the scope of his bloodshed. Aside from the choice where I kill people myself, I am directly causing no deaths; these people's lives are at the hands of a madman who will proceed with the slaughter no matter what action* I take. He cannot be stopped, he cannot be brought to any form of justice, and in every* scenario provided, he will kill you at the end, which apparently you won't contest (or you apparently have no chance of victory). Your choices* are to leave, or trade your life for others' lives, in any way you choose.

But Ruki, you ask, what was with all those asterisks? Well, unless the OP's been edited again :smalltongue:, fighting is still an option.

Sure, he's guaranteed to get away, which takes a lot of the fun out of "I attack the s.o.b.", but he's guaranteed to get away in every scenario. He also promised to stop killing after this final act, and he always keeps his word. Maybe I'm misinterpreting that to mean that he'll stop if I choose to save everyone.

My core point remains, though. This is the Hero's Dilemma, and BBEGs do it for one purpose and one purpose alone: to torture heroes who can't decide which choice to make. The best choice continues to be the same as it was in the first Spiderman movie: if you resign someone to death, you weren't really being a hero. Pragmatic, perhaps, but not a hero.

A hero saves everyone he can.

So, despite the conditions getting flipped on me due to two hours' lag, my choice is the same. We may all die, but we'll die fighting back. We'll die standing for what we believe in. We'll die making evil painfully aware that we refuse to play by its rules.

That's a hero to me.

[GoC]

With 100 people on the verge of being slaughtered, the only* option presented is to sit still until their intended murderer states his demands. Under no conditions* can I stop his evil act; the options presented* only alter the scope of his bloodshed. Aside from the choice where I kill people myself, I am directly causing no deaths; these people's lives are at the hands of a madman who will proceed with the slaughter no matter what action* I take. He cannot be stopped, he cannot be brought to any form of justice, and in every* scenario provided, he will kill you at the end, which apparently you won't contest (or you apparently have no chance of victory). Your choices* are to leave, or trade your life for others' lives, in any way you choose.
:smallconfused:
I actualy specified that the hero could fight if he wanted. However the odds are stacked against him.


Sure, he's guaranteed to get away, which takes a lot of the fun out of "I attack the s.o.b.", but he's guaranteed to get away in every scenario. He also promised to stop killing after this final act, and he always keeps his word. Maybe I'm misinterpreting that to mean that he'll stop if I choose to save everyone.
Yep, if you stop him he'll stop killing anyway.


A hero saves everyone he can.
So he'll start shooting them from left to right?:smallamused:


So, despite the conditions getting flipped on me due to two hours' lag, my choice is the same. We may all die, but we'll die fighting back. We'll die standing for what we believe in. We'll die making evil painfully aware that we refuse to play by its rules.
Nice to see that there's still some debate regarding this.:smallbiggrin:

[Jothki]

Asking for a vote is worthless, since neither the first 75 people nor the last 25 people would have the best interests of the group in mind.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Asking for a vote is worthless, since neither the first 75 people nor the last 25 people would have the best interests of the group in mind.

Democracy 101 indeed. :smallamused:

[Mewtarthio]

Asking for a vote is worthless, since neither the first 75 people nor the last 25 people would have the best interests of the group in mind.

Nobody ever has the best interests of the group in mind (okay, that's an exaggeration, but it's generally a good assumption to make). You just need to figure out whose interests happen to correspond with the group's.

[Devils_Advocate]

Assuming that each hostage wishes to maximize her personal odds of survival, the hostages would vote for option 2 if they were making their choice from behind a veil of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position).

Actually, I'm also assuming that the evil mastermind will attempt to kill all of the hostages if the hero doesn't choose option 2, 3, or 4, and that the hero and the hostages somehow know this to be true, and know that he will keep his word and retire from villainy after all of this is over. None of this is explicitly stated.

For future reference, GoC: Don't re-number options like that when altering scenarios. It can only declarify discussion. You should have made "walk away" option 4. Tsk. No, don't change them back now, that would only make things worse.

[GoC]

Actually, I'm also assuming that the evil mastermind will attempt to kill all of the hostages if the hero doesn't choose option 2, 3, or 4, and that the hero and the hostages somehow know this to be true, and know that he will keep his word and retire from villainy after all of this is over. None of this is explicitly stated.
Well it is stated that he keeps his word...


For future reference, GoC: Don't re-number options like that when altering scenarios. It can only declarify discussion. You should have made "walk away" option 4. Tsk. No, don't change them back now, that would only make things worse.
Ok, thanks.