 Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
Hmm,
Being honest now. Whenever in Real Life "the Law" has conflicted with my morality, I simply IGNORE IT unless there happens to be too many witnesses or an agent of law enforcement about. So yea, I guess that by definition makes me someone operating from a "criminal mindset" in the eyes of society. I don't go around stealing, randomly assaulting, raping or killing, but if someone steals my stereo in the middle of the night and manages to get out the front door with it, I'm still going to stun-gun him, even if he gets out onto the street before my crippled ass catches him.
To go into apocalypse scenario examples:
Me and my band of survivors are hungry:
1) I find empty store: Like Thorn, I break in and take what we need. I do NOT needlessly fuck up/waste things we can't carry/don't want to take with us. Caring for me and mine doesn't mean screwing others over needlessly, and the remaining food in the store could well save others once we've moved on.
2) I find a man and his family in the store: Again, like Thorn, I attempt negotiations FIRST. However, UNLIKE Thorn, if negotiations fails I then move on to a critical question: Ie: "Just how hungry are my people, and how badly do we need what's in the store? If we're talking about haven't eaten in a day or two, I probably mark the place's location in mind and look elsewhere as well. If, ON THE OTHER HAND, my people are wearing down due to lack of calories to fuel our staying on the move, and whoever's in possession of the store won't share, I exercise the NECESSARY level of force to TAKE what we NEED. That does NOT MEAN shooting the primary defender, just because that's the most expedient thing to do. I'll try to temporarily incapacitate him/her first, but yes, if it escalates I WOULD be willing under those conditions to pull my weapon and shoot them dead. At that point the situation has become a decision between the value of the lives of strangers, and the value of the lives of my loved ones/friends/allies. My people automatically default to having a greater right to survive in my mind.
3) Someone attempts to steal or otherwise harm members of my Group. I immediately apply the most expedient form of lethal force to permanently remove the potential FUTURE threat of that individual. Turning the logic inward, Ie: "The Merle Dixon Scenario", a member of my group becomes a WILLFUL danger to me and/or the rest of the group. My first action would be similar to Rick's on the roof. I would use sufficient force to end the threat the now-dangerous group-member has become. If possible, I would refrain from mid-to-long-term injury of that individual at first, but if knocking them down and giving them time to cool off (if possible) doesn't work, I make the hard choice and end the threat permanently.
I believe the key difference between Thorn's and my methodology is that Thorn seems to place the same value on the lives of strangers and his loved ones/friends/allies. Conversely, I would operate from a perspective of Lives of Loved Ones/Friends/Allies > Lives of Others. That doesn't mean I place NO value on the lives of others, and it CERTAINLY DOESN'T mean that I would simply resort to sociopath-like expedience at the first hint of conflict. If push comes to shove though...bottom line is that I'd do what was necessary to keep my people healthy, sheltered and safe.
I'm interested in your outlook Thorn. Here's three more hypothetical situations I'm interested in seeing where you draw the line on.
1) A member of your group cut themselves on a piece of Plexiglass while crawling through a broken window during a scavenging run. Four days later they are running a significant fever, and the wound looks seriously inflamed and/or infected. One of the members of your group (let's say a former ER Nurse) recognizes Septicemia as the cause of your group member's illness, and advises you they need a broad-spectrum antibiotic, or even Penicillin, or they'll probably die. During the last scavenging run your group came across a CVS Pharmacy/Grocery Store inhabited by a man, his wife and teenager son, and a little girl, but the man refused to even consider letting you or any of your people set one foot inside. They rebuffed your every effort to barter or persuade them to join up with your group, and they rebuff you again when you return and explain your need for antibiotics and why.
Now, you have a group member who will be dead in 2-5 days without those antibiotics and something sterile to dress the wound and keep it sterile. The Nurse in your group is confident that if your sick group member gets the antibiotics in the next few hours/today, that they'll make a full and speedy recovery. On the other hand, he/she warns you that even 24 hours delay is likely to mean a significantly longer period of recovery, and/or place them at risk of further complications. It's a small town, only had a clinic which has since been looted or otherwise taken out of the equation. Your group member can't be moved far very, since they're lapsing in and out of fever dreams, and if they happen to suddenly shout in the wrong place/wrong time while you're moving them, the noise could attract zombies or even simple looters.
What do you do?
2) You and your group are well-concealed in a secure building when a small horde (let's say a few hundred) zombies trickle, then pour into the area in pursuit of a man and woman struggling to support a third unconscious man between them as they flee. It's obvious from the way they move they can't go much farther and will be caught and dragged down within the next couple of minutes without help. However, it's equally obvious that if you move from your hiding place, you'll probably be able to get the trio inside your shelter, but you'll have a couple hundred zombies surrounding it and trying to claw their way in. The place seems reasonably sturdy, but you honestly aren't sure if it can withstand that many zombies trying to get in. Also, you've got food and water for about 4 days for you and yours, but the addition of 3 more mouths eating and drinking will slash that time nearly in half, and your experience so far has told you it may take as long as 5-6 days without any sign of human activity (assuming your shelter withstands the early rabid assault) for the bulk of the horde to aimlessly drift off somewhere else.
What do you do?
Genuinely curious. Goes no farther than that. I've wrestled with questions like these for quite some time.
Great questions, and I have done a lot of going back and forth on these types of topics with people in the past we might have covered some of this ground before. My big thing was "Zombie hypothetical" and I would post a scenario and ask people to make the hard decisions. It was thought provoking, some people got upset, and some would want to change the rules of the game. (example: Zombies break through your defenses you can reach one person before you get out your wife or your child what do you do" Hard questions)
In the first situation I would not be willing to take by force what we needed to save the life of a survivor in my group if it means killing those people, our person hurt themselves it is our problem not the other survivor group. I find their being unwilling to barter frustrating, ignorant, and short sighted however that is on them and I would not want to execute them for it. In the end I would I think leave it open to democracy, and allow everyone in our group input into the situation.
However I would have to consider other factors. Would not saving this person lead to tension in the group that would make it splinter? Would it be possible (strongly) that I would lose control of the group based on that, and in turn jeopardizing my family.
What are the potential losses we would face by trying to take by force what we needed? Making a bad situation worse in a war and losing 2-3 people to save one makes little sense even if there is another long term benefit because you might not live long enough for that to pay off.
Would I be able to possibly subdue the person(s) in the drug store without killing them, take what we need and leave them be? A small town means there is risk of a revenge attack.
I is a hard question and I find it hard to answer with so many unknowns but at face value I say no I do not take what I want from the weak to keep one in my group alive.
NOW, If it is my daughter the equation becomes much more difficult. This is a very hard question. Neither option is appealing. Letting a member of our group die is a horrible choice, killing others and taking what they have is a horrible choice. I would need to find a happy medium to live with myself. However I think I could justify taking what we need by force based on the fact that they were condemning our person to death out of selfishness and greed if that was indeed the case.
Hmm so where does that leave me. I would exhaust every avenue possible to not have to kill them but in the end if we had to I would be okay with taking what we needed by force in specific situations.
As to the second question also a really hard one because basically you know the outcome up front. Help them and stay put you doom yourself to die of hunger and thirst for sure, do not help them and you are good for a few more days.
In either case the zombies might not wander off they might stay, in one case they know for a fact you are inside your little base of ops and will be laying siege to it and you lack the supplies to withstand the siege.
That said I would not of clear conscious be able to watch people die I could help, and being that short on food and water we would need to move soon anyway. I would I think help them.I would at least put it to a quick Q&A for diplomacy sake if not to the group as a whole to key members. Two more able bodies is a good thing to have a round, it makes fighting your way out a more likely option, and it strengthens you long term while impacting your supplies short term.
I think strongly I would lean towards helping these people. I would feel better if it was just my life I risked but in your scenario that is not an option.
So I help them, check the health of the guy they were assisting. Cut rations down to a minimum. Order everyone to remain silent and not move much, allow numbers of the horde to thin out as much as possible and with one days worth of rations left make a break for it with 2 more able bodied people assisting us. It is a catch 22. 2 more healthy people, one who is a burden if he/she still lives. A few more days alive in our cubby hiding like rats before we have to make a break for it, but we sacrifice our humanity watching others we could have helped die before our eyes.
I need to fix things, it is as my ex used to say a problem. I can not just listen to a problem I need to fix it. It is who I am. I have been in bad spots before and I have always error on the side of what is right in my own mind.
In that world there are no guarantees. I would take my chances on whats right I think... or like to think.
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks