The Ultimate Choice...

[AlcoholicPancake]

Shram

Yvaine

I go with 4 - it gives everyone in the village an opportunity to behave in a courageous and benevolent way, so that those who do survive are less likely to go all self-recriminatory, instead pulling together to make it through. Cowardice and self-interest are real morale-killers.

Also, saying that the people who would die in the attempt might be really important to the village...I notice you also didn't say how the best friend is important to the village. If you want our choices to be weighted by the roles of the possible victims, you might want to let us know what those roles are. For all we know, the best friend could be the god-king-holy-shumbaza, or the best hunter. For that matter, what's *our* hypothetical role in the village? The weighty seeing-into-the-future style options might indicate that *we* are serving in the role as Most Holy Whatever. Which would make us pretty damn important and also highly influential.

I like food.

Thats mostly irrelevent, at least to most people.
In a situation like that there are very few people who stop up and go "hmm is he worth saving or do me and the rest have better skills".
It becomes a situation of one person trying to defend an other person no matter who it is or what they've done.

Captain Shram has answered your thread

She has a good point though. What if your friend could barely contribute to the tribe? What if he was the worst at what he did, or constantly did it wrong? Most people may not look at something from a logical standpoint in that kind of situation, but depending on what role he played and how advanced his skills were in the role, he may not be worth sacrificing a life.  

[Shram]

AlcoholicPancake

Shram

Yvaine

I go with 4 - it gives everyone in the village an opportunity to behave in a courageous and benevolent way, so that those who do survive are less likely to go all self-recriminatory, instead pulling together to make it through. Cowardice and self-interest are real morale-killers.

Also, saying that the people who would die in the attempt might be really important to the village...I notice you also didn't say how the best friend is important to the village. If you want our choices to be weighted by the roles of the possible victims, you might want to let us know what those roles are. For all we know, the best friend could be the god-king-holy-shumbaza, or the best hunter. For that matter, what's *our* hypothetical role in the village? The weighty seeing-into-the-future style options might indicate that *we* are serving in the role as Most Holy Whatever. Which would make us pretty damn important and also highly influential.

I like food.

Thats mostly irrelevent, at least to most people.
In a situation like that there are very few people who stop up and go "hmm is he worth saving or do me and the rest have better skills".
It becomes a situation of one person trying to defend an other person no matter who it is or what they've done.

Captain Shram has answered your thread

She has a good point though. What if your friend could barely contribute to the tribe? What if he was the worst at what he did, or constantly did it wrong? Most people may not look at something from a logical standpoint in that kind of situation, but depending on what role he played and how advanced his skills were in the role, he may not be worth sacrificing a life.

I am an old ATG member =]

I am not denying her point I am saying the likelyhood of anyone thinking about that in the moment of horror is small.
Most humans stick together in times of peril even when they hate eachothers guts.

Click here to PM Me regarding ATG.
Captain Shram has answered your thread
 

[Yvaine]

I in no way think it would be likely considered, given the situation. Necro Tech was just insisting a while back that letting a bunch of potentially really-valuable villagers sacrifice themselves to save a fellow could be devastating. So I'm just saying: if he wants us to consider the possible usefulness of everyone in the tribe and weight our decisions that way, the answer is 6 - Not Enough Information.

Personally, in a small tight-knit community, I don't think anyone would want to be remembered as the asshat who ran away and let Buddy get eaten by a tiger. It's practically suicide. No one would feel particularly interested in going out of their way for your sorry a**, since you obviously wouldn't have their back, so the next time you were in need (apparently of food, since the village seems to be running low), you'd be screwed. Now, if you want to be taken care of, be the guy who talked everyone into banding together to save somebody. *Everyone* would be looking for a way to be your friend.

Just because something is morally the Right Thing To Do, doesn't make it stupid or senseless.  

[SoLongAndFairWell]

I would pick 4 because a deadly threat to the rest of the tribe is now dead despite several villagers dying in the process. That's life in the jungle, some people die from sickness or being mauled to death by a wild animal.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

NecroTech51

Thaliat Everwood

#5 Get the villagers to all grab weapons, kill the tiger, save your friend, and provide the village with some much needed food.

I think outside the box!

Otherwise I'd go with option 4; delegation is a good thing when it saves my skin and that of my friend. And now there's a few less mouths to feed in a village that apparently doesn't have enough food considering option 2's parameters...although option 2 achieves a similar result so it is my second choice. My third choice is option 3 and my last choice is option 1.

Now you had a good idea about picking 4, but remember I put that every person is essential to the survival of the tribe...now there is no way we know who dies...it could be just a regular Joe, but i could have been the medicine man or the harvester...putting that in the description keeps you thinking...Ohh, and I like the way you think, and I would have picked you choice (#5) if I put it xd ...However, each decision has to have a good part and a bad part...That's what the point of the question is...You need to think of what you will lose vs. what you will gain...What you lost with your choice is possibly some villagers that could have been important to the tribe's survival vs. a dead tiger and your friend...

Sure, everyone is "important", but these questions forget humans are very adaptable. Even if some "important" people die, the tribe can adapt with the skills of the "important" people left and continue to survive. I think I could live with the risks...especially since it eliminated some extra mouths to feed and thus prolonged the food supply, thus teaching the survivors how to hunt for food and the importance of hunting less dangerous animals... and still saved my companion in the process. And now that tiger is no longer a threat to the rest of us.