Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Vahnavoi]

Nothing we are talking about has anything to do with exploring our values or morality in the real world. Because this is all make believe. Are you saying "I value human life more than you because I refuse to allow my imaginary character kill an imaginary zombie?"

Who are you trying to kid? It is well-known several major works of genre fantasy are outright religious allegories, and their influence on the realm of games is undeniable. Moving outside genre fantasy makes the thought more absurd, not less. Or do you think that when a Cyberpunk supplement makes a point of having players play transwomen in middle-eastern country struggling to fit new technologies with traditional beliefs, the make-believe's got nothing to do with the real world?

As for your, likely rhetoric, question? There probably are people genuinely making that argument, whether reasoning has any basis in fact is another thing. But regardless of what you think is the answer, it would be, and is, trivial to make games that deliberately discuss these types of questions with the player - as proven not just by tabletop games, but by existing videogames from Harvester to Undertale.

Whether games affect our values and morality is dubious, but it would be ignorant to claim they don't discuss and explore our values and morality. They don't need to do that, but they do, because their authors want to.

---

How do we know [a lot of vampire stories are thinly-veiled erotica]?

From analysis of culture and subtext, when this thing isn't just text or spelled out as the author's intention in interviews, commentaries, etc.. The history of modern vampire genre is well known and annotated, it isn't hard to find essays detailing how this happened.

The same can, and to a degree, already has, happened with zombies, though. Zombie romance is an existing genre in paranormal fiction, look up a list on TV Tropes or something.

[KorvinStarmast]

The same can, and to a degree, already has, happened with zombies, though. Zombie romance is an existing genre in paranormal fiction, look up a list on TV Tropes or something.

Sturgeon's Law applies to this art form as well.

The undead are inherently antithetical to the living, because the Living have Life and the undead crave it but do not have it. That is a core premise of the undead as monster in the genre that D&D taps into.

How VtM handles it I won't comment on, but I will offer a nod to establishing a setting for the authors.

In the general case of Vampires, it's blood and control that they want. None of that has changed, Love at First Bite's humorous take on the vampire as sexual predator/stalker considered...

As to The Walking Dead, and the ham-fisted artifice of using a disease/plague to create something like zombies - yet another failed trop subversion.

We seem to have wandered well clear of the original topic, so I guess Star Wars will insert itself into this thread before it hits the limit..was Palpatine undead in movie 9?

[False God]

was Palpatine undead in movie 9?

Depends on how you count Force ghosts. I'd argue that they're not undead, because the Force is alive.

Functionally though, he had the same goals as you state for traditional undead, the life of the living and control.

I'm not sure how much that differentiates the "undead" from "a murderer" contextually though, which makes me question the value of it as a defining metric of the undead.

[Palanan]

Just to fold this into a gaming context, there’s a template in Pathfinder called the Prana Ghost, which is a Force ghost in all but name.

[Segev]

But make the following experiment :

- Name 20 somewhat well-known vampire centric IPs
- scratch those aimed at children ("The Little Vampire" and similar one)
- scratch those that have explicit sex
- scratch those that have a romance involving a vampire (and yes, that means Buffy is out as is Underworld)

You should now have less than half left.

- now consider whether the vampires action might be a metaphor for sex
- remove those where the answer is "probably yes"

Are there more left than 2 ?

Define "might be a metaphor for sex?" That's so broad as to be open to presuming the conclusion. Literally any monster's activities "might be a metaphor for sex" if you look at it "correctly."

I am sure you'd argue that the classic Dracula is engaging in a metaphor for sex (possibly non-consensual, possibly not, depending what parts of it you consider part of the metaphor vs. necessary elements of the framing device for the metaphor), but by that standard, so are werewolves, the titular monsters of Alien and its sequels, Ursela's villain song from The Little Mermaid, and don't get me started on Scar!

Spoiler

Show

Manipulating his brother into trusting him in a time of desperate vulnerability only to take advantage of the situation to get what he wants and then throwing his brother away after emotionally manipulating his nephew and THEN guilting said nephew into running away lest the scandalous thing he made his nephew feel solely responsible for was revealed.

None of those are, I think, actually such metaphors, but you can see how they "might" be. This is why I find that a really weak standard to prove it.

"Assume these are metaphors for sex. Now, doesn't them being metaphors for sex prove they are metaphors for sex?"

[Devils_Advocate]

While that wasn't ideally phrased if so, I imagine that Satinavian's intent was to remove examples where vampires action probably is a metaphor for sex, not where vampires action "probably might" be a metaphor for sex.

Even then, though, the "probably" implies a level of objectivity that's still lacking. Change it to "probably intended as a metaphor for sex" and we're talking about the likelihood about something that presumably really is or is not the case. But even then, probability is itself subjective.

The other way around.

X putting a stake in Y's heart in order to destroy Y is X being hostile to Y, not vice versa.

And, more to the point, if Group A sends a raiding party into Group B's territory to pillage everything they can get their greedy little hands on, that's Group A being hostile to Group B.

If you want to talk about the relevant tropes, then isn't mummies' whole deal that they're angered by their tombs being defiled? Like, a bunch of colonialist grave robbers bust into one o' them ding dang pyramids, but OH SNAP, those wacky white people chose the wrong **** to wreck this time! Nothing too strange about that state of affairs in a broader sense, really. Fortune kills the bold nine times out of ten; we just generally don't hear about all of the doomed expeditions. Maybe if they featured shambling corpses more often. Although often enough and they'd become the expected norm and thus unexceptional, like the normal inanimate corpses generated by such expeditions. With some reasonable assumptions, maybe we could calculate the optimal undead to expedition ratio for effective cautionary tales. What was I talking about again?

Oh, right! This is the sort of "bastard vs. other bastard" story where the audience will tend to be sympathetic to the protagonists even more so than average. Tell the same story from the mummy's perspective, and a lot of people are probably gonna switch to rooting for the mummy, downplaying or outright ignoring the mummy's unsympathetic traits this time. How dare those foreign heathens deny the dead pharaoh his rightful rest! Never mind that his elaborate tomb and pampered afterlife are part of a position of unearned privilege reserved for a tiny elite...

Anyway, in D&D, "the undead" is a broad general term for both animate corpses and immaterial spirits. No hostility towards the living required. Ghosts, for example, are all about resolving their unfinished business. They ain't got time for killing anything with a pulse, man, unless the living make a habit of interfering. They can even be good-aligned! 3rd Edition introduced an alternate type of undead powered by positive energy instead of negative energy, with the idea being that these didn't have to be evil... but undead didn't have to be evil in the first place, so that part didn't really make much sense.

But if we are going that route, I recall reading that mummies in D&D were at one point powered by positive energy instead of the usual negative! Which just supports the perspective that they're spirits of righteous vengeance who give sacrilegious thieves their well-deserved comeuppance.

Nothing we are talking about has anything to do with exploring our values or morality in the real world. Because this is all make believe.

Like exclusion from "anyone", exclusion from "we" does a fair bit of work through the implying of implications. But if you mean that I, specifically, interjected this entirely unrelated new topic into the discussion, I have to disagree with more than just the "unrelated" part. Before I brought it back up, NichG had earlier discussed the idea of general principles beyond specific positions on specific issues. And the idea that we can examine such general principles by considering hypothetical scenarios is... generally uncontroversial, I'm pretty sure? Like, "Who cares about abstract hypotheticals, we should deal with real situations as they come up" is not one of the standard responses to e.g. the trolley problem. And for good reason! To say that is to argue that one should not try to prepare for novel situations in the future. It implies that it's better to instead make split-second decisions under unfamiliar circumstances without prior consideration. Is that really the stance you want to take here?

One might suggest that such purported general principles do not really exist. I can't honestly say that I've observed anything more than nominal adherence to high-level abstract values to be common. And not just in the sense of knowingly doing wrong to others; people seem to think that violations of their own professed values are ethical! In which case, those can't actually be the premises on which they decide whether something is ethical or unethical. But people do somehow still seem to believe that they value individual freedom or impartiality or whatever in general, not just in specific cases! So illustrating that people don't actually value those things as ends in themselves thus winds up making a point about the values of actual people that is somehow not obvious to most people. Which feels like it falls under "exploring our values in the real world".

Are you saying "I value human life more than you because I refuse to allow my imaginary character kill an imaginary zombie?"

No. Rather, due to ways in which both humans and non-humans are treated in real life, I get the impression that I have greater than average consideration for other beings in general. I wouldn't feel the same way about real people only being okay with the mistreatment of fictional beings. But we don't live in that utopia. And audience sympathy for e.g. little-developed characters seems to be driven largely by the same attitudes that drive sympathy for real world e.g. strangers. We don't care as much what happens in imaginary stories, but still caring in basically the same way to a degree is a big part of why we read books, play games, and so on. So I surmise that most people entirely fine with fictional e.g. violence aren't fine with it only because it's fictional, but because they're at least somewhat okay with something similar happening in real life.

Whether zombies are technically human matters only with respect to how others, not I, decide who is an acceptable victim. I reject the implication that drawing that line arbitrarily is somehow self-justifying. And if it is self-justifying, then devaluing humans is just as valid as any other choice! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all.

Does that give a better sense of where I'm coming from?

[Vahnavoi]

Like, "Who cares about abstract hypotheticals, we should deal with real situations as they come up" is not one of the standard responses to e.g. the trolley problem.

It probably is one of the standard responses, in the sense that non-negligible amount of responders asnwer like that. It's right up there with "why are there only two options, this obviously BS, I look for the third option so no-one has to die!"

The trolley problem is well-known, but not well-understood, and there's segments of the population who are unwilling or uncapable to entertain the scenario as presented, or unwilling or unable to consider hypotheticals or counterfactuals at all.

[NichG]

It probably is one of the standard responses, in the sense that non-negligible amount of responders asnwer like that. It's right up there with "why are there only two options, this obviously BS, I look for the third option so no-one has to die!"

The trolley problem is well-known, but not well-understood, and there's segments of the population who are unwilling or uncapable to entertain the scenario as presented, or unwilling or unable to consider hypotheticals or counterfactuals at all.

I don't even think those segments of the population are wrong to hold that position, as framing scenarios with unreal constraints and proposing forced choices are both pretty standard manipulation tactics you'd be likely to encounter in day to day life.

[False God]

It probably is one of the standard responses, in the sense that non-negligible amount of responders asnwer like that. It's right up there with "why are there only two options, this obviously BS, I look for the third option so no-one has to die!"

The trolley problem is well-known, but not well-understood, and there's segments of the population who are unwilling or uncapable to entertain the scenario as presented, or unwilling or unable to consider hypotheticals or counterfactuals at all.

The trolly problem is a thought experiment because it is unrealistic. Reality is much more complex. It's useful as a narrative framing device because stories often need to fabricate drama when the "real world" solutions are usually much more appropriate, but much less interesting.

This is true of "thought experiments" in general. They might be interesting to think about, but they're not usefully applicable to real life.

The trolley problem is understood fine. Most people just aren't interested in engaging in tedious binary moralizing it proposes.

[NichG]

The trolly problem is a thought experiment because it is unrealistic. Reality is much more complex. It's useful as a narrative framing device because stories often need to fabricate drama when the "real world" solutions are usually much more appropriate, but much less interesting.

This is true of "thought experiments" in general. They might be interesting to think about, but they're not usefully applicable to real life.

The trolley problem is understood fine. Most people just aren't interested in engaging in tedious binary moralizing it proposes.

Well the point of the trolley problem is not so much 'what should you do?' as it is to make you notice that responsibility for a decision can factor into how people reason about morality even moreso than outcomes. The whole 'there can be a net good trade, but being the one choosing to make that trade might matter'

But yeah, actually answering it or putting someone in a position to answer it or even being concerned over how it gets answered are all on the bad faith usages side.

[Vahnavoi]

@Tanarii: that is a completely nonsensical take, especially in context of a hobby that thrives on what are fundamentally extended thought experiments.

[KorvinStarmast]

X putting a stake in Y's heart in order to destroy Y is X being hostile to Y, not vice versa.

Wrong. You don't understand the what is at stake in the fiction. Willful ignorance is not a good look, since you chose to utterly divest that situation of context.

[Vahnavoi]

But yeah, actually answering it or putting someone in a position to answer it or even being concerned over how it gets answered are all on the bad faith usages side.

Gee, you must really hate combat-heavy games, considering such games regularly lead to situations analogous to the trolley problem.

Let's be perfectly clear, all the common criticism towards the trolley problem can be and have been applied towards combat-heavy games. My point here isn't that such games are beyond criticism. It's that in the context, that part about bad faith usage is itself dubious and quite hypocritical.

[False God]

Gee, you must really hate combat-heavy games, considering such games regularly lead to situations analogous to the trolley problem.

Let's be perfectly clear, all the common criticism towards the trolley problem can be and have been applied towards combat-heavy games. My point here isn't that such games are beyond criticism. It's that in the context, that part about bad faith usage is itself dubious and quite hypocritical.

Not, they really aren't.

"Kill it." or "Don't kill it." aren't thought experiments, they're decision points. The point of thought experiments is understanding the reasoning that produces the decision. Binary moralizing "You didn't kill it, so the whole town died!", or "You killed it, so you're a bad person!" are bad faith proposals.

Killing or not killing, fighting or not fighting aren't trolley problems. They're just decision points. Decision points without underlying examination of the thinking that brought you to the decision point isn't a thought experiment. And combat heavy games sure as heck don't bother giving people the time or even care of they want to explore the reasoning behind their decision to push the button or not. They just throw them into some more combat.

A low combat game is far more likely to present a real thought experiment, since the actions taken in combat have the potential to be more meaningful within the context of the game, since the fight itself is likely to be more meaningful.

The fact that you even present a "combat heavy game" as an example of being even remotely a thought experiment is demonstrative of the problem with binary thinking. Even in a combat heavy game, the choices should not be binary. To construe them as binary only underscores how much of a bad faith setup it is in the first place.

[Devils_Advocate]

It probably is one of the standard responses, in the sense that non-negligible amount of responders asnwer like that. It's right up there with "why are there only two options, this obviously BS, I look for the third option so no-one has to die!"

Eh, you're probably right.

"Try to find a better solution" is a perfectly reasonable answer to what you would do and to what you should do for at least some variations of the Trolley Problem.

Wrong.

I'm not sure what you think "hostile" means at this point.

You don't understand the what is at stake in the fiction. Willful ignorance is not a good look, since you chose to utterly divest that situation of context.

What fiction? What context? Vampires appear in lots of stories, and they aren't remotely the same in all of them. Was horror the "genre" you meant to refer to earlier? D&D is a fairly generic fantasy game. Works of fantasy can and do use horror monsters in ways that are not ham-fistedly cliche. Like, your earlier description of undead would work great for a horror game, but D&D is not really a horror game and non-coincidentally that description does not apply to all of the undead in D&D. Feels kinda like you're the one ignoring context here. (Crossed part of that out 'cause I don't wanna do a false dichotomy here.)

[Vahnavoi]

@False God: now you're just exemplifying lack of understanding of the trolley problem.

The though experiment doesn't do the kind of binary moralizing you accuse it of. Plenty of games do, for example, you might as well be criticizing common D&D play scenarios. The decision points of who to kill and why, alongside of the moral judgement passed on the character, are just parts of the game, no bad faith required.

Meanwhile, the point of the trolley problem isn't to moralize the respondent - it and its variants exist to examine how seemingly immaterial changes in the scenario influence decisions made. Any dynamic game will naturally create strings of such subtly varying scenarios. It's cute you think "combat-heavy" means people don't reason about why their characters do this or that, or that this (in tabletop games) primarily mental exercise of imagining an intensense violent affair somehow doesn't count as a thought-experiment, or that strings of binary decisions can't be used to make an interesting game... but I have zero reason to give such arguments any credit. They are objectively false.

[NichG]

Gee, you must really hate combat-heavy games, considering such games regularly lead to situations analogous to the trolley problem.

Let's be perfectly clear, all the common criticism towards the trolley problem can be and have been applied towards combat-heavy games. My point here isn't that such games are beyond criticism. It's that in the context, that part about bad faith usage is itself dubious and quite hypocritical.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't appreciate someone using combat heaviness as a vehicle to persuade me of a moral point. I would consider 'look, I made it life or death, so now you have to agree with my moral assertion' to be a bad faith form of argumentation, yes.

Now, a combat-heavy game as a means to engage in introspective examination, sure. But that's why I said 'the answer isn't the point'. It's the process of coming to the answer that is the actual utility there.

[False God]

@False God: now you're just exemplifying lack of understanding of the trolley problem.

The though experiment doesn't do the kind of binary moralizing you accuse it of. Plenty of games do, for example, you might as well be criticizing common D&D play scenarios. The decision points of who to kill and why, alongside of the moral judgement passed on the character, are just parts of the game, no bad faith required.

Meanwhile, the point of the trolley problem isn't to moralize the respondent - it and its variants exist to examine how seemingly immaterial changes in the scenario influence decisions made. Any dynamic game will naturally create strings of such subtly varying scenarios. It's cute you think "combat-heavy" means people don't reason about why their characters do this or that, or that this (in tabletop games) primarily mental exercise of imagining an intensense violent affair somehow doesn't count as a thought-experiment, or that strings of binary decisions can't be used to make an interesting game... but I have zero reason to give such arguments any credit. They are objectively false.

I'm aware of what the point of the experiment is. I'm pointing out thats not how it's used.

And don't call my arguments "cute", it's condescending and rude.

[Vahnavoi]

@False God: your ideas of how it is or isn't used aren't particularly great, nor binding on how games actually use it.

---

@Tanarii: you continue making comments that make no sense in context.

The basic trolley dilemma has all basic building blocks of a roleplaying game scenario, and can be iterated or extended into a more elaborate scenario easily enough. Even if you maintain such a scenario tells nothing of morality and is only a tragedy of characters caught in a cruel situation where they lack agency to act right... yup, a horror game scenario or several, right there. Simply disgust at the cruelty or (supposed) pointlessness, can be the aesthetic point to include it in a game.

[Devils_Advocate]

By the way, KorvinStarmast, I find myself more than a little bewildered by your repeated combination of

(1) seemingly refusing to specify what you're talking about and
(2) acting as though me not knowing what you're talking about is disingenuous of me.

You seem to be trying to allude to something fairly specific as though it's obvious what you're referring to. It's not obvious to me. It's obvious to you what you're thinking, but that's because you're the one directly experiencing your thoughts firsthand.

I am likely less well-versed in various genre fiction than you, but there is nothing willful about my ignorance on the matter. Meanwhile I am quite skeptical that the same can be said of your evasiveness.

To generalize my own impressions, aside from non-normative sexuality rarely seen as frightening anymore, what makes vampires scary is that they prey on humans. And that's obviously a legitimate concern for humans. But vampires really have their work cut out for them if they're to be more evil apex predators than humans. Our species is remarkably cruel to its food.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not sure what you think "hostile" means at this point.

I sure do.

What fiction?

The fiction regarding why one puts a stake in a vampire's heart.
This isn't rocket science. That's the genre I have been talking about this whole time which you deliberately evade and try to subvert.
And you accuses me of what?
Sorry, no credibility for you on this one.

As an aside, if you honestly don't know the genre of vampire fiction, why are you even engaging?

But vampires really have their work cut out for them if they're to be more evil apex predators than humans. Our species is remarkably cruel to its food.

Sorry, that's the kind of subversion I have been calling you out on already. Do you see the problem now? The "whataboutery" does not advance the conversation, it's deliberate noise to obfuscate the core fiction.

[Telok]

D&D morality in 95% of games: "There's real afterlives. Kill them all, let the gods sort it out, loot everything. Bob, did you remember to pack the crowbars and stone drills?"

[Segev]

The reason "kill the monster or don't; if you don't, it will destroy the village," is generally not analogous to the trolley problem is that the trolley problem sets up innocents as the ones who will die no matter what; you're just choosing to do nothing and allow by your inaction a larger number of innocents die, or to do one other thing and cause by your action a smaller number of innocents who would otherwise live to die in order to save the larger number of innocents who would've died had you not done this thing.

In the "kill the monster or don't" scenario, you're either facing a non-agent (e.g. choosing to destroy the otherwise-empty trolley itself), or you're facing a malicious agent (e.g. you're slaying the man who will trick the innocents onto the trolley track to set up this horrifying experiment). In either case, killing is potentially justified in order to save the innocents. If the monster is a creature without agency, then it is acceptable to put it down as a danger to innocent people. If the monster is a creature with agency, then it is acceptable to put it down because it willfully endangers innocent people. If, somehow, the "monster" is a person whose agency has been taken away, you're back to the trolley problem and you probably have people seeking to break the mind-control and/or destroy the bad guy who stole the agency of the "monster."

[MoiMagnus]

The reason "kill the monster or don't; if you don't, it will destroy the village," is generally not analogous to the trolley problem is that the trolley problem sets up innocents as the ones who will die no matter what; you're just choosing to do nothing and allow by your inaction a larger number of innocents die, or to do one other thing and cause by your action a smaller number of innocents who would otherwise live to die in order to save the larger number of innocents who would've died had you not done this thing.

In the "kill the monster or don't" scenario, you're either facing a non-agent (e.g. choosing to destroy the otherwise-empty trolley itself), or you're facing a malicious agent (e.g. you're slaying the man who will trick the innocents onto the trolley track to set up this horrifying experiment). In either case, killing is potentially justified in order to save the innocents. If the monster is a creature without agency, then it is acceptable to put it down as a danger to innocent people. If the monster is a creature with agency, then it is acceptable to put it down because it willfully endangers innocent people. If, somehow, the "monster" is a person whose agency has been taken away, you're back to the trolley problem and you probably have people seeking to break the mind-control and/or destroy the bad guy who stole the agency of the "monster."

Yes. Though there is a common point:

• The trolley problem assume that "the trolley will kill the peoples if you do nothing and using the switch it is the only action you can do" which is a weird hypothesis that make common morals difficult to apply
• Similarly D&D assume that "the monster will kill peoples if you do nothing and killing it is the only action you can do", which also make common morals difficult to apply

As soon as you relax the hypothesis, for example by making it so the adventurers might wrongly assume that the monster will kill peoples, or by having alternative solutions to killing the monster, then you're on more dubious moral ground.

[Similarly to how as soon as you relax the hypothesis of the trolley problems, other actions might be more morally correct]

[Vahnavoi]

@Segev: all situations where one might have to do utilitarian calculus over which lives to save is analogous to a trolley problem. The basic dilemma has myriad variations to study seemingly inconsequential factors that nonetheless make people change their minds, like this whole "innocence" deal.

But, more relevantly: I can just grant you that you're right about basic "kill monster or don't" scenario, and it won't change any of my points, because that is not the only version of the trouble that is commonly gamed.

You also have:

"If I don't fight the monster, it will kill most of my party members, but if I do fight, it will kill a party member who is otherwise not at risk."

"If I don't fight the monster, it will kill most of my party members, but if I do fight, it will kill me."

"If I don't fight the monster, it will kill a bunch of non-player characters, but if I do fight, it will kill a player character."

List not exhaustive.

Many games also have an explicit morality system, such as alignment, empathy, humanity, sanity, corruption points etc., so the decision is not isolated from rest of the game and the player can have pressure to act in multiple directions - a classic example being player of a selfish or evil character being motivated to pick the anti-utilitarian option, even as the metagame points to another.

[Segev]

Yes. Though there is a common point:

• The trolley problem assume that "the trolley will kill the peoples if you do nothing and using the switch it is the only action you can do" which is a weird hypothesis that make common morals difficult to apply
• Similarly D&D assume that "the monster will kill peoples if you do nothing and killing it is the only action you can do", which also make common morals difficult to apply

As soon as you relax the hypothesis, for example by making it so the adventurers might wrongly assume that the monster will kill peoples, or by having alternative solutions to killing the monster, then you're on more dubious moral ground.

[Similarly to how as soon as you relax the hypothesis of the trolley problems, other actions might be more morally correct]

In terms of the second bullet, that isn't a moral dilemma any more than stopping the trolley from killing the people it otherwise would kill by destroying the (empty) trolley is a moral dilemma. The monster is either an unintelligent thing that needs to be put down, or it is an intelligent being who is choosing to harm innocent people and thus abdicates its own right to its life being sacrosanct.

@Segev: all situations where one might have to do utilitarian calculus over which lives to save is analogous to a trolley problem. The basic dilemma has myriad variations to study seemingly inconsequential factors that nonetheless make people change their minds, like this whole "innocence" deal.

But, more relevantly: I can just grant you that you're right about basic "kill monster or don't" scenario, and it won't change any of my points, because that is not the only version of the trouble that is commonly gamed.

You also have:

"If I don't fight the monster, it will kill most of my party members, but if I do fight, it will kill a party member who is otherwise not at risk."

"If I don't fight the monster, it will kill most of my party members, but if I do fight, it will kill me."

"If I don't fight the monster, it will kill a bunch of non-player characters, but if I do fight, it will kill a player character."

List not exhaustive.

Many games also have an explicit morality system, such as alignment, empathy, humanity, sanity, corruption points etc., so the decision is not isolated from rest of the game and the player can have pressure to act in multiple directions - a classic example being player of a selfish or evil character being motivated to pick the anti-utilitarian option, even as the metagame points to another.

In each of those cases, the monster is the agent choosing to kill your "party member who is otherwise not at risk." (And, frankly, the only scenario where I can think of it killing a party member only if you attack it, but will kill the rest of your party if you don't, is one where it's definitely smart enough to be holding a hostage, and is also evil enough not to be trustworthy when it claims it'll spare the hostage if it gets to kill your other friends.)

In other words, it ceases to be the trolley problem because the one making the actual (potentially-)evil choice isn't you. "If you don't sacrifice your brother on my altar, I will destroy this city! Are you willing to be responsible for a whole city being destroyed for your petty morals?" is correctly answered by, "But I'm not the one who'll destroy it. You are. Even if I do not sacrifice my brother on your altar, you can choose not to follow through on your threat. Therefore, it is not my action that makes the determination. Heck, even if I do sacrifice him as directed, there's no guarantee you won't destroy that city anyway."

[NichG]

@Segev: all situations where one might have to do utilitarian calculus over which lives to save is analogous to a trolley problem. The basic dilemma has myriad variations to study seemingly inconsequential factors that nonetheless make people change their minds, like this whole "innocence" deal.

The 'have to do' is doing a lot of work in this sentence. To many people, the process of going through working out their thoughts about the trolley problem would naturally lead to a rejection of utilitarianism because they would feel that it does matter if its 'them' pulling the lever. That 'I don't think I should be responsible for choosing who lives or dies' reaction doesn't make sense in utilitarianism but fits in deontological or virtue ethics stances (as well as more complex social models of morality about trust and predictability of behavior).

And in open-ended scenarios, picking between presented options that are both bad can be criticized in a way that is absent in the trolley problem, because there is always the possibility of unknown third options that the person could have taken. That fundamentally changes the scenario, which is why people get annoyed when the response to the trolley problem is e.g. 'I call 911' or 'I destroy the trolley'. Because without that forced choice it has very different implications.

[EggKookoo]

The 'have to do' is doing a lot of work in this sentence. To many people, the process of going through working out their thoughts about the trolley problem would naturally lead to a rejection of utilitarianism because they would feel that it does matter if its 'them' pulling the lever. That 'I don't think I should be responsible for choosing who lives or dies' reaction doesn't make sense in utilitarianism but fits in deontological or virtue ethics stances (as well as more complex social models of morality about trust and predictability of behavior).

One thing I find interesting about the trolly problem is the relative moral difference between actively causing distress and passively allowing distress. Is the person that takes action to harm someone more morally culpable than the person who refrains from preventing harm that he himself did not cause?

If so, how much so? Can it be measured in lives?

[NichG]

One thing I find interesting about the trolly problem is the relative moral difference between actively causing distress and passively allowing distress. Is the person that takes action to harm someone more morally culpable than the person who refrains from preventing harm that he himself did not cause?

If so, how much so? Can it be measured in lives?

Even worse (well, to me worse), it suggests that this moral difference can lead to a position in which it's socially immoral to try to save a life even at zero external cost when your ability to succeed is uncertain, because then you are taking on responsibility for what happens when otherwise it would have been an act with no responsibility associated with it. And practically speaking, that moral position can have very severe downstream consequences when taken at large...

[EggKookoo]

Even worse (well, to me worse), it suggests that this moral difference can lead to a position in which it's socially immoral to try to save a life even at zero external cost when your ability to succeed is uncertain, because then you are taking on responsibility for what happens when otherwise it would have been an act with no responsibility associated with it. And practically speaking, that moral position can have very severe downstream consequences when taken at large...

At the same time, how do you avoid it? Even the basic trolly problem has to deal with it, otherwise there would just be one or two people on the trolly. But typically I see it with a half-dozen at least, and often more like 10 or more. The experiment has to significantly weigh the cost in lives so to balance the moral difference between action and inaction.

Which is one problem I have with it as it's usually presented. To me it's really just asking what your personal number is. If there's one person on the trolly, usually most people I think would opt for inaction and feel morally safe. Two people on the trolly? Well, debatable. At some point there's a number where it feels "obvious" you should steer it onto the lone rail-sleeper, but what number is that and why is there even a number at all?