![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
CW // zombie fiction, discussion of killing someone so they don't turn zombie, discussion of leaving someone to zombies.
Watching a game on twitch and this is at least the third time I've seen "should you leave someone locked in a compromised jail during a zombie apocalypse?" presented like it was a moral quandary. I just don't get the premise. The point of zombies is that their victims add to their numbers, so even if you were thinking in the most evil manner (short of wanting the zombies to win), you don't leave someone to the zombie behind you because then you have 2 zombies behind you.
I could see it as a question if the cell was secure, because then leaving them to hear the monsters & hope someone comes back before they starve is a real dick move but possibly worth arguing if you have reason to believe they might hurt your party.
I could see someone thinking it was a clever question if they pointed out the third option of killing the prisoner so they don't become a zombie. "do you take in someone who could betray your people at any moment, leave them to an ugly death that risks their zombie coming after you, or do you kill them yourself?". I would think the writer was an edgelord who doesn't think prisoners are people but at least I could understand why it was a question.
It especially bothers me because in the 3 examples I remember they made a point of you having to take their word on why they were there. Like ok, let's say you don't believe a word out of their mouth, that still means you have no evidence they are a danger to you if you release them, and do know for a fact they are a danger to you if left to turn zombie. I mean if its the devil himself, you're armed for zombie & they don't even have a belt, make Lucifer walk point.
Watching a game on twitch and this is at least the third time I've seen "should you leave someone locked in a compromised jail during a zombie apocalypse?" presented like it was a moral quandary. I just don't get the premise. The point of zombies is that their victims add to their numbers, so even if you were thinking in the most evil manner (short of wanting the zombies to win), you don't leave someone to the zombie behind you because then you have 2 zombies behind you.
I could see it as a question if the cell was secure, because then leaving them to hear the monsters & hope someone comes back before they starve is a real dick move but possibly worth arguing if you have reason to believe they might hurt your party.
I could see someone thinking it was a clever question if they pointed out the third option of killing the prisoner so they don't become a zombie. "do you take in someone who could betray your people at any moment, leave them to an ugly death that risks their zombie coming after you, or do you kill them yourself?". I would think the writer was an edgelord who doesn't think prisoners are people but at least I could understand why it was a question.
It especially bothers me because in the 3 examples I remember they made a point of you having to take their word on why they were there. Like ok, let's say you don't believe a word out of their mouth, that still means you have no evidence they are a danger to you if you release them, and do know for a fact they are a danger to you if left to turn zombie. I mean if its the devil himself, you're armed for zombie & they don't even have a belt, make Lucifer walk point.
