The Trolley Dilemma in a Killing Game plot

[TNexus]

As my avatar suggests, I'm a very big fan of the Danganronpa and Zero Escape series from Spike Chunsoft. As such, I decided to try my hand at my own similar project, if nothing but a fan project, a homage to the two series I have spent a lot of time with. As I looked for ways to make my project different from both series, I looked at common moral dilemmas and arrived at one I find particularly interesting: The Trolley dilemma.

To describe the Trolley Dilemma simply, a trolley (or any other object that will cause death for certain) is heading towards a group of people, in this case, let's call them Group A. On the opposing track is a single person tied up, let's call them Group B. The person with the lever, in this case, Group C, has a simple choice. They can either choose to pull the switcher, switching the cart trolley onto the other track and killing Group B, or do nothing, and let the Trolley kill Group A.

The Trolley problem raises the question: "Is it more just to save a group of people by sacrificing one?" and "Is allowing more people to die without your interference better than having one person die by your own hand?"

Of course, there are several issues with the Trolley problem when being used as the core for a Killing Game. The biggest and most glaring flaw is that compared to Danganronpa and Zero Escape's game setups, it becomes increasingly hard for an Executioner to successfully kill Group A and not get killed (either by ending up on the tracks themselves during the next round, or killed by another player due to their refusal to pull the lever), meaning the majority of Executioners would pull the lever every time, erasing the dilemma entirely. At the same time, an Executioner cannot go free immediately after playing the Trolley game once. The only solution that I thought of to this issue is that The Executioner's identity is hidden. In the case of the trolley dilemma, a trolley and tracks are not necessary, as it would be very obvious to notice a person reaching for a lever (or not).

 

[Kes]

This is not actually a discussion about an aspect of the making of games, which is what 'General Discussion' is for (that's why it's in the section 'Game Development') but a moral question.
[move]General Lounge[/move]

 

[Webby]

Well, a major hole in this problem is the variables. You see,

To describe the Trolley Dilemma simply, a trolley (or any other object that will cause death for certain) is heading towards a group of people, in this case, let's call them Group A. On the opposing track is a single person tied up, let's call them Group B. The person with the lever, in this case, Group C, has a simple choice. They can either choose to pull the switcher, switching the cart trolley onto the other track and killing Group B, or do nothing, and let the Trolley kill Group A.

There isn't any point in killing many people over a single person, anyone with the right mind would pick to let that single person die because that is morally and justifiable because you don't have any connection to any of these person. The person who should be Group B is ex: your crush, family member, best friend/friend, important politician, etc.. In this case, in my own opinion, I would pick to kill person B (Group B is nonsense cause it only refers to a person) because it would be less consequencial, sure I would be charged with murder or something like that but atleast, I save a bunch of people who could be more helpful to the country/world and probably get off with a minor sentence which could be life sentence but hey, I saved a group rather than a person...

If technically this person B is what I described as someone important, it is now somewhat debatable and could affect my decision, but I would preferrably pick person B to die or if the group A is a bunch of evil doers, then they will get the trolley to the face. My decision is based on if the person I saved can help improve the surroundings and not based on personal biased. If my mother is person B and the group B is a group of scientists who has the cure for cancer then I would let Group B to live because it helps the world by curing the one of the most deadliest diseases
in the world...

I hope you enjoy the little rant of mine and sorry if it got too long. This is based on what the person prefers so it takes a bit more thought than a yes or no question...

 

[Lihinel]

The Trolley problem raises the question: "Is it more just to save a group of people by sacrificing one?" and "Is allowing more people to die without your interference better than having one person die by your own hand?"

Oh that's easy: First you arange it so that the leaver is set to kill the highest amount of people possible, then you shoot the rest, thus saving bullets.
Morality becomes simple if you just see it as an evil maximisation problem.

 

[Martin_Arcainess]

In all honesty, if Group A was my wife, group B was a bunch of strangers I'd chose Group B to die any time but the fact is how would my wife live with me after this choice I made? For her, she might think, I'd rather die than have 3 people die just to save me.
So that might cause conflict later on in our lives.

As for the other option, choosing to kill my wife to save 3 strangers who I know nothing about.....I couldn't live with myself ever again. It would just be too much for me to handle.


So the trolly idea is great but I need more information about the people if I where to make a choice, cause you can't make a universal choice as I stated, my wife is the number 1 priority to me but to other people not so as much and if anything if another person doing the lever instead of me then they would choose group A any day.


Now with this, you a presented with 2 options, I like to think outside the box.

I'd jump in the trolly and apply the brakes.

 

[Tai_MT]

I've never really found it all that interesting as most people will choose "the most lives possible saved" as the obvious solution, unless you turn that one person into someone they value highly.

Personally, with my own moral compass a little skewed and being able to "make the tough decisions", this would be the easiest decision to make.

In fact, in another version of the dilemma (the version of it I prefer as it has the least amount of holes and requires the least explanation), it is, "You could have the cure to every disease humanity has ever had, currently does have, and will ever have for all eternity. All it'll cost you is the life of a small and innocent child that you must kill yourself. Could you do it?"

My answer to that, without hesitation has always been, "Yep, is there a specific way I'd have to do it or would a gunshot be enough?"

Sometimes, people change it to, "your own child". My answer inevitably remains the same. "Yes. Even if I'd have to live with it until my own death."

The problem with most hypotheticals like the "trolley dilemma" is that you're asking people who have never had to make hard decisions before. They will pick one side or the other and say, "Yep, it's the best solution because X". They don't actually have to live with those consequences. They don't even think about them at all. They don't even consider that in the heat of the moment they just don't have the will to do it. How many people say, "I'll kill you!" in the heat of anger, but when it would come down to doing it... would never be able to carry it out? They'd think of the consequences.

When designing my own game, that's what I realized. Unless player has to live with the consequences of those types of decisions, it isn't going to matter. It isn't really moral until they actually understand the full ramifications of what they're doing and what they have done. You'd have to shove it in their face at every opportunity. If you don't, it isn't a big deal to them. It's still "a hypothetical". It shouldn't be. It should be a real moral choice with real consequences that a player should have to live with. Living with every hard decision is how you get players to care. Not like games like Mass Effect where people forget about it after 20 minutes. Not like games like Telltale does where every decision doesn't matter so people really just don't care about their choice.

Unless that choice is going to literally haunt them, they aren't actually making a "moral choice". They're telling you the choice they THINK is moral. They're telling you what they think is expected of them from the society they live in. They aren't telling you what they'd really do. They aren't telling you what they're actually capable of. They're not telling you which decision would actually let them sleep at night and which one would wake them up with nightmares.

I think if you're going to go for that kind of gameplay. Gameplay in which you're using "The Trolley Dilemma", it has to do all those things. It has to steamroll the player. They need to be pounded with the decision often. They need to see and feel and hear it's consequences all over. It needs to affect their stories, how they play, and what they might do for the next decision. No, "this is obviously the best choice". Only a choice in which the player has to think, "This is the choice I can live with".

 

[metronome]

Life is Strange is trying to do same....they put everyone you know (but not close enough) in the small town you live in the group A and then put the one you have been trying so hard to protect from the start (possibly love interest?) in the group B.

If I remember correctly, most player in that game ends up sacrificing group B, and then get angry due to how the game is trying to make you guilty if you choose to sacrifice group A instead of group B.

And then do you play Resident Evil 7, the part where you have to choose to save between a female stranger and your wife? What the hell, right?

I myself think that if you want to make this thing works, you gotta have to make it fair......

 

[Tai_MT]

Well, to be fair, in "Life Is Strange", the options are, "Do you want to save a selfish drug addict sociopath who is not only a brat, but refuses to accept responsibility for her own actions... just for some implied girl on girl action" and "Do you save a whole town full of people who are mostly pretty good and not jerks and have full lives ahead of them?"

I mean, the answer is a very "no contest" for most people. To even really make it a fair choice, the town would have to be run by demons who eat babies and everyone in it would have to be a demon.

 

[Robin Hoot]

This thread has a bunch of spoilers.

 

[Tai_MT]

Nah, just one spoiler. And it's for "Life Is Strange". A spoiler pretty much anyone would know at this point. Kind of like the ending to "The Last of Us". Or the ending to "Undertale". Or, the ending to "The Sixth Sense".

I've never even played "Life Is Strange" and I know the ending, just from normal interaction with the internet.

 

[TNexus]

This is what I've come up with, in regards to both the project itself, I've given it the working title Crisis Again, but I highly doubt that this will be the final name.

• The game isn't going to be secretive about being a Danganronpa/Zero Escape homage.
• Unlike Zero Escape's 9 Participants and Danganronpa's 16, the game begins with 18 Survivors/Inmates.
• The theme of the game is based on a Prison.
• Every day, the remaining Inmates play a death game with the chance to escape.
• Depending on your choices within the death game, your route will differ.

As for the Trolley Dilemma game, it's surfaced as The Ultimate High Stakes Pain Train!!!:

The Ultimate High Stakes Pain Train!!!
Played on Day 1 with 18 Survivors. One survivor is secretly delivered a note into their
sealed room in the morning stating that they have until 12 midday to post a Survivor's
name into the Prison Master's office or face punishment. 6 more Survivors are chosen at
random. The one sent the note is the Executioner in this game. The person who they wrote
in the note is the Scapegoat. The remainder of the survivors picked are the Condemned.

The Executioner's identity remains hidden, but they know that they are the Executioner.
The 7 Survivors, both the Scapegoat and the Condemned have been tied to rail tracks. A
train is approaching and will soon kill all of the Condemned. The Executioner can choose
to press the button hidden in their stand to divert the train to hit the Scapegoat
instead. However, the remaining survivors may vote on who they think the Executioner is.
If they vote correctly, the Train will instead divert and hit the Executioner.

To make it more interesting, the note itself delivered to the Executioner states that the Prison Master will save the person who they write in the note.

 

[Robin Hoot]

Your idea sounds pretty cool. I'd definitely want to play a game like that, especially if the player's choices actually make a difference in the story.

A bit off-topic but since are a fellow fan of the genre, have you read Jinrou Game? It's a manga with a similar premise to Danganronpa's where the characters make some very tough choices.

 

[Kes]

With that last post it is clear that this has now got to the stage where it should be in Ideas and Prototypes. 'General Lounge' is not meant for game making related topics - that's why it's in the "Off-Topic" section. It really helps everyone if things are posted in the correct place.

I am, however, unable to move it as Ideas and Prototypes is a moderated section with its own Rules and Guidelines. If you want to continue this discussion, now that you have refined it somewhat, please read the Rules for there and either post in 'Ideas that don't deserve their own thread' or post a thread specifically for your game if you are able to meet the requirements.

[mod]I am, therefore, closing this thread.[/mod]