History Main / SadisticChoice

22nd Feb '18 6:13:34 AM TroperDoper
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-089 SCP-089]]
7th Dec '17 4:01:31 PM MasterN
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->''"Spider-Man! This is why only fools are heroes -- because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice. Let die the woman you love... or ''suffer'' the little children! Make your choice, Spider-Man, and see how a hero is rewarded! We are who we choose to be...'''now choose!'''"''

to:

->''"Spider-Man! This is why only fools are heroes -- because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a [[TropeNamer sadistic choice.choice]]. Let die the woman you love... or ''suffer'' the little children! Make your choice, Spider-Man, and see how a hero is rewarded! We are who we choose to be...'''now choose!'''"''
28th Nov '17 7:59:51 AM Veanne
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** When presented to a toy version of this dilemma, a young boy decided to TakeAThirdOption, as it can be seen [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4 in this video]]. He picked the one (toy-)person, put it with the other five, so one track was empty and the other was with six figures. Then, he... [[spoiler: made the train run over all the six]].
** And this has become a real issue with the development of self-driving cars. A typical case is that a group of children jump out in front of such a car, such that the car could not stop in time to avoid hitting them. The car could instead swerve and hit a wall, in which case the driver would risk injury instead of the children. Done by a human driver it's a HeroicSacrifice; but as the programmer of the self-driving software for the car, whichever choice you program the car to make you are creating a KillerRobot. However, considering that good-quality cars are equipped with safety devices (safety belt and airbags, for example), the driver would be, at least theoretically, better protected than the children, as these devices are placed inside the car and not outside.
** The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has now created a [[http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ online game]] called "Moral Machine" to analyze what the public deems as appropriate actions for a self-driving car. Currently (Feb 2017), the majority cares mostly about what saves more lives, does not care about whether or not to save themselves, cares a bit about upholding the law (running over jaywalking people), slightly favour saving females, prefer saving humans over animals, prefer young over old people, thin over fat people and "good" people (in the shape of doctors) over "bad" people (in the shape of bank robbers).



* A classic philosophical dilemma involved a train approaching a junction. If the points remain closed, the train will hit five people standing on the track and kill them. You have the ability to open the points to send the train onto another track, avoiding the people - but there is ''one'' person standing on that track. Which do you choose to have on your conscience: that five people died who you could have saved, or that one person died and you killed them?
** When presented to a toy version of this dilemma, a young boy decided to TakeAThirdOption, as it can be seen [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4 in this video]]. He picked the one (toy-)person, put it with the other five, so one track was empty and the other was with six figures. Then, he... [[spoiler: made the train run over all the six]].
** And this has become a real issue with the development of self-driving cars. A typical case is that a group of children jump out in front of such a car, such that the car could not stop in time to avoid hitting them. The car could instead swerve and hit a wall, in which case the driver would risk injury instead of the children. Done by a human driver it's a HeroicSacrifice; but as the programmer of the self-driving software for the car, whichever choice you program the car to make you are creating a KillerRobot. However, considering that good-quality cars are equipped with safety devices (safety belt and airbags, for example), the driver would be, at least theoretically, better protected than the children, as these devices are placed inside the car and not outside.
** The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has now created a [[http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ online game]] called "Moral Machine" to analyze what the public deems as appropriate actions for a self-driving car. Currently (Feb 2017), the majority cares mostly about what saves more lives, does not care about whether or not to save themselves, cares a bit about upholding the law (running over jaywalking people), slightly favour saving females, prefer saving humans over animals, prefer young over old people, thin over fat people and "good" people (in the shape of doctors) over "bad" people (in the shape of bank robbers).

to:

* A classic philosophical dilemma involved a train approaching a junction. If ''Literature/CourierFromWarsaw'' (a UsefulNotes/WorldWarII memoir) presents the points remain closed, decision to begin Warsaw Uprising as one of these - the train will hit five people standing on the track and kill them. You have the ability to open the points to send the train onto another track, avoiding leaders could either allow the people - to let loose and get massacred, but there is ''one'' person standing on that track. Which do you choose to have on your conscience: that five people died who you could have saved, or that one person died show their capability and you killed them?
** When presented to a toy version of this dilemma, a young boy decided to TakeAThirdOption, as it can be seen [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4 in this video]]. He picked the one (toy-)person, put it with the other five, so one track was empty and the other was with six figures. Then, he... [[spoiler: made the train run over all the six]].
** And this has become a real issue with the development of self-driving cars. A typical case is that a group of children jump out in front of such a car, such that the car could not stop in time to avoid hitting them. The car could instead swerve and hit a wall, in which case the driver would risk injury instead of the children. Done by a human driver it's a HeroicSacrifice; but as the programmer of the self-driving software for the car, whichever choice you program the car
willingness to make you are creating a KillerRobot. However, considering that good-quality cars are equipped LastStand for their country - or hold them back, giving Stalin an excuse to come in and take over. The author notes that, in their subsequent talks with safety devices (safety belt and airbags, for example), him, none of the driver would be, at least theoretically, better protected than leaders attempted to shoulder off the children, as these devices are placed inside the car and not outside.
** The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has now created a [[http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ online game]] called "Moral Machine" to analyze what the public deems as appropriate actions for a self-driving car. Currently (Feb 2017), the majority cares mostly about what saves more lives, does not care about whether or not to save themselves, cares a bit about upholding the law (running over jaywalking people), slightly favour saving females, prefer saving humans over animals, prefer young over old people, thin over fat people and "good" people (in the shape of doctors) over "bad" people (in the shape of bank robbers).
blame.
25th Nov '17 7:17:10 PM Onlythrice
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* The Spanish hero Alonso Pérez de Guzmán defended the town of Tarifa from a siege by the Moors in 1296, but in the process his son was kidnapped. When they threatened to kill his son unless he handed over the city, according to legend [[TheNeedsOfTheMany Guzmán gave them his knife.]]
3rd Nov '17 9:53:21 AM VVK
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Parodied in ''WebComic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal'' strip [[http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/choose "Choose"]]. A villain tells a mother that she must choose one of her children to die to save the other, but she immediately chooses the child she's in the habit of fighting with, and they start yelling at each other again. The villain goes to find a more happy family to capture and give the sadistic choice to.
16th Oct '17 12:35:18 PM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Independent Website/YouTube film ''Caitlyn'' ([[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2cu0wBw5w4&fmt=18 Part 1]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlbFfFiS88&fmt=18 Part 2]]) forces a sadistic choice on a girl about 9 years old. She wakes up chained to a pole with some rather tight looking bonds, and finds a handwritten note right in front of her informing her that she is holding the key to the bonds in her hand. If she frees herself, her parents will die. If she drops the key, she will be a prisoner forever. [[spoiler:She drops the key. She wakes up in bed, but her parents are gone anyway. Talk about a DownerEnding.]]

to:

* Independent Website/YouTube film ''Caitlyn'' ''WebVideo/{{Caitlyn}}'' ([[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2cu0wBw5w4&fmt=18 Part 1]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlbFfFiS88&fmt=18 Part 2]]) forces a sadistic choice on a girl about 9 years old. She wakes up chained to a pole with some rather tight looking bonds, and finds a handwritten note right in front of her informing her that she is holding the key to the bonds in her hand. If she frees herself, her parents will die. If she drops the key, she will be a prisoner forever. [[spoiler:She drops the key. She wakes up in bed, but her parents are gone anyway. Talk about a DownerEnding.]]
4th Oct '17 8:11:45 PM DarkSoldier
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* David was inspired by God [[DependingOnTheWriter or by Satan]] to take a census of Israel and Judah. Because doing so, he sinned greatly [[note]]The Bible doesn't mention why but according to most interpretations David was relying on his army to win his wars rather than on God. [[/note]], the prophet Gad announces that he has to choose his punishment: seven (or three) years of famine, three months of defeat at the hands of his enemies or three days of pestilence. The king chooses the latter option because he wants to be punished by God rather than by the men.

to:

* David was inspired by God [[DependingOnTheWriter or by Satan]] to take a census of Israel and Judah. Because doing so, he sinned greatly [[note]]The Bible doesn't mention why why, but according to most interpretations interpretations, David was relying on his army to win his wars rather than on God. [[/note]], the prophet Gad announces that he has to choose his punishment: seven (or three) years of famine, three months of defeat at the hands of his enemies enemies, or three days of pestilence. The king chooses the latter option because he wants to be punished by God rather than by the men.



** The stereotypical KillerGameMaster loves doing this, especially to [[TheCape paladin]] players.



** Another Goblins example occurred before the story began: [[spoiler:When Chief Kills-a-Werebear dies in combat and the goblin clan needs to elect a new chief, the clan fortune teller prophecises that if Kills' son becomes the new chief, he'll doom the clan to obscurity with his poor leadership. If Thaco is made chief, he will be a wise leader, but many goblins will want Kill's son to become chief anyway and he'll have to lead the clan through a brutal civil war. Thaco decides to exile himself from the clan so that the son can be chief.]]

to:

** Another Goblins example occurred before the story began: [[spoiler:When Chief Kills-a-Werebear dies in combat and the goblin clan needs to elect a new chief, the clan fortune teller prophecises predicts that if Kills' Kills's son becomes the new chief, he'll doom the clan to obscurity with his poor leadership. If Thaco is made chief, he will be a wise leader, but many goblins will want Kill's son to become chief anyway and he'll have to lead the clan through a brutal civil war. Thaco decides to exile himself from the clan so that the son can be chief.]]



* During WWII UsefulNotes/JosephStalin received an ultimatum from the Nazis: either he trades captive Field Marshal Paulus for his captured son Jakov, or Jakov will be [[ToThePain painfully]] executed on camera, and the record will be sent to the father. After a while, Stalin's response was reportedly[[note]]There's no conclusive proof that Stalin [[BeamMeUpScotty really said that]], although his decision was the same.[[/note]]: "I do not trade Lieutenants for Field Marshals". He, however, did whatever he could to save his son via other methods, but all it failed. At least, Jakov's execution was not as horrible as planned - just before it started he assaulted the guards and was shot dead. According to the Nazis, Jakov [[TheCoronerDothProtestTooMuch ran into an electrified fence]].
* Some have presented President Harry S. Truman's decision to [[UsefulNotes/AtomicBombingsOfHiroshimaAndNagasaki use the atomic bombs]] as one of these, given the potential dilemma of choosing between killing a couple hundred thousand Japanese or losing a similar number of Americans and killing an even larger number of Japanese. In his mind, and to most Allied citizens of the time, there was no question what the 'right' thing to do was. At the time, using the bombs to improve the efficiency of the Strategic Bombing campaign was not seen as a particularly horrible or unique decision, what Nina Tannenwald has called 'The Nuclear Tabboo' coming about in the aftermath.

to:

* During WWII WWII, UsefulNotes/JosephStalin received an ultimatum from the Nazis: either he trades captive Field Marshal Paulus for his captured son Jakov, or Jakov will be [[ToThePain painfully]] executed on camera, camera and the record will be sent to the father. After a while, Stalin's response was reportedly[[note]]There's no conclusive proof that Stalin [[BeamMeUpScotty really said that]], although his decision was the same.[[/note]]: "I do not trade Lieutenants for Field Marshals". He, however, did whatever he could to save his son via other methods, but all it failed. At least, Jakov's execution was not as horrible as planned - just before it started he assaulted the guards and was shot dead. According to the Nazis, Jakov [[TheCoronerDothProtestTooMuch ran into an electrified fence]].
* Some have presented President Harry S. Truman's decision to [[UsefulNotes/AtomicBombingsOfHiroshimaAndNagasaki use the atomic bombs]] as one of these, given the potential dilemma of choosing between killing a couple hundred thousand Japanese or losing a similar number of Americans and killing an even larger number of Japanese. In his mind, and to most Allied citizens of the time, there was no question what the 'right' thing to do was. At the time, using the bombs to improve the efficiency of the Strategic Bombing campaign was not seen as a particularly horrible or unique decision, what Nina Tannenwald has called 'The Nuclear Tabboo' Taboo' coming about in the aftermath.



** And this has become a real issue with the development of self-driving cars. A typical case is that a group of children jump out in front of such a car, such that the car could not stop in time to avoid hitting them. The car could instead swerve and hit a wall, in which case the driver would risk injury instead of the children. Done by a human driver it's a HeroicSacrifice; but as the programmer of the self-driving software for the car, whichever choice you program the car to make you are creating a KillerRobot. However, considering that good-quality cars are equipped with safety devices (safety belt and airbags, for example), the driver would be, at least theorically, better protected than the children, as these devices are placed inside the car and not outside.
** The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has now created a [[http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ online game]] called "Moral Machine" to analyze what the public deems as appropiate actions for a self-driving car. Currently (Feb 2017), the majority cares mostly about what saves more lives, does not care about whether or not to save themselves, cares a bit about upholding the law (running over jaywalking people), slightly favour saving females, prefer saving humans over animals, prefer young over old people, thin over fat people and "good" people (in the shape of doctors) over "bad" people (in the shape of bank robbers).

to:

** And this has become a real issue with the development of self-driving cars. A typical case is that a group of children jump out in front of such a car, such that the car could not stop in time to avoid hitting them. The car could instead swerve and hit a wall, in which case the driver would risk injury instead of the children. Done by a human driver it's a HeroicSacrifice; but as the programmer of the self-driving software for the car, whichever choice you program the car to make you are creating a KillerRobot. However, considering that good-quality cars are equipped with safety devices (safety belt and airbags, for example), the driver would be, at least theorically, theoretically, better protected than the children, as these devices are placed inside the car and not outside.
** The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has now created a [[http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ online game]] called "Moral Machine" to analyze what the public deems as appropiate appropriate actions for a self-driving car. Currently (Feb 2017), the majority cares mostly about what saves more lives, does not care about whether or not to save themselves, cares a bit about upholding the law (running over jaywalking people), slightly favour saving females, prefer saving humans over animals, prefer young over old people, thin over fat people and "good" people (in the shape of doctors) over "bad" people (in the shape of bank robbers).
23rd Sep '17 6:37:03 AM NotThisThing
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** When presented to a toy version of this dilemma, a young boy decided to TakeAThirdOption, as it can be seen [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ-0H2l9Os in this video]]. He picked the one (toy-)person, put it with the other five, so one track was empty and the other was with six figures. Then, he... [[spoiler: made the train run over all the six]].

to:

** When presented to a toy version of this dilemma, a young boy decided to TakeAThirdOption, as it can be seen [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ-0H2l9Os com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4 in this video]]. He picked the one (toy-)person, put it with the other five, so one track was empty and the other was with six figures. Then, he... [[spoiler: made the train run over all the six]].
14th Jul '17 2:35:17 PM Luigifan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Given it's such a hard choice, it's no wonder most good guys tend to TakeAThirdOption. It's practically unheard of for a hero to actually make this choice, and have it carried through before either the villain [[VillainBall breaks his promise]] or [[BigDamnHeroes the cavalry manage a rescue]]. If the one offering the choice benefits regardless of what the chooser chooses, its a XanatosGambit. If both choices lead to the same outcome anyway, then it's a MortonsFork.

to:

Given it's such a hard choice, it's no wonder most good guys tend to TakeAThirdOption. It's practically unheard of for a hero to actually make this choice, and have it carried through before either the villain [[VillainBall breaks his promise]] or [[BigDamnHeroes the cavalry manage a rescue]]. If the one offering the choice benefits regardless of what the chooser chooses, its it's a XanatosGambit. If both choices lead to the same outcome anyway, then it's a MortonsFork.



* The ''TabletopGame/YuGiOh'' card "Painful Choice", as the name implies, is all about putting your opponent in such a bind: you choose five cards from your deck, and he has to choose the one you get to keep (all the others are discarded to the Graveyard). Ideally, the player who uses this card is supposed to pick their five most powerful cards, meaning that whatever happens ''one'' of them is going to end up in his hand, and this card can combo with other effects that can result in the player getting ''[[HeadsIWinTailsYouLose all five cards regardless of what the opponent chooses.]]'' (Unsurprisingly, it's banned from tournament play.)

to:

* The ''TabletopGame/YuGiOh'' card "Painful Choice", as the name implies, is all about putting your opponent in such a bind: you choose five cards from your deck, and he has to choose the one you get to keep (all the others are discarded to the Graveyard). Ideally, the player who uses this card is supposed to pick their five most powerful cards, meaning that whatever happens happens, ''one'' of them is going to end up in his hand, and this card can combo with other effects that can result in the player getting ''[[HeadsIWinTailsYouLose all five cards regardless of what the opponent chooses.]]'' (Unsurprisingly, it's banned from tournament play.)



** Kaiba's {{Expy}} in ''Anime/YuGiOhGX'' Manjyome also used this card in a duel with his brother. Since Manjyome needed a certain Spell card, and his brother was a total amateur who believed Attack Points were everything, he offered the Spell and 4 Monsters as a choice, knowing his brother would let him keep the one card that wasn't a monster.
* In ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'', there's [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=88803 Choice of Damnations]], which forces your opponent to pick a number. You then choose whether they lose life equal to that number or if they sacrifice cards they control until they're left with only that number of cards in play. Obviously, if they pick a number too low, you just force them to go on with only a few cards in play, but if they pick one too high their life can get dangerously low.

to:

** Kaiba's {{Expy}} in ''Anime/YuGiOhGX'' Manjyome ''Anime/YuGiOhGX'', Manjyome, also used this card in a duel with his brother. Since Manjyome needed a certain Spell card, and his brother was [[AttackAttackAttack a total amateur who believed Attack Points were everything, everything]], he offered the Spell and 4 Monsters as a choice, knowing his brother would let him keep the one card that wasn't a monster.
* In ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'', there's [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=88803 Choice of Damnations]], which forces your opponent to pick a number. You then choose whether they lose life equal to that number or if they sacrifice cards they control until they're left with only that number of cards in play. Obviously, if they pick a number too low, you just force them to go on with only a few cards in play, but if they pick one too high high, their life can get dangerously low.



** Lore from the ''Avacyn Restored'' block has an example. Liliana Vess captures Thalia's companions and instructs her to destroy the Helvault (the magical prison housing a great many powerful demons, one of whom Liliana wants to have a word with) or let them die. Surprisingly, she chooses to release the demons. Ultimately it is a subversion of the trope since Avacyn, the angel protector of the plane, had also been trapped there, so things end up getting better.

to:

** Lore from the ''Avacyn Restored'' block has an example. Liliana Vess captures Thalia's companions and instructs her to destroy the Helvault (the magical prison housing a great many powerful demons, one of whom Liliana wants to have a word with) or let them die. Surprisingly, she chooses to release the demons. Ultimately Ultimately, it is a subversion of the trope trope, since Avacyn, the angel protector of the plane, had also been trapped there, so things end up getting better.
20th Jun '17 5:57:46 AM WillBGood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Another strategy doesn't get a card in their hand, but get them in the Graveyard. For example, the most notorious use of this card at one point was to use it to summon the incredibly powerful [[GameBreaker Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning,]] possibly on your first turn. You chose any two Light Monsters, any two Dark Monsters, and any other card. No matter which card your opponent chose, you'd have the requirements to summon Black Luster Soldier; the choice your opponent made [[MortonsFork did not matter in the least]]. And there were ''lots'' of similar combos that could be used to achieve similar results.

to:

** Another strategy doesn't get a card in their hand, but get them in the Graveyard. For example, the most notorious use of this card at one point was to use it to summon the incredibly powerful [[GameBreaker Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning,]] possibly on your first turn. You chose any two Light Monsters, any two Dark Monsters, and any other card. No matter which card your opponent chose, you'd have the requirements to summon Black Luster Soldier; the choice your opponent made [[MortonsFork did not matter in the least]]. And there were ''lots'' of similar combos that could be used to achieve similar results.
This list shows the last 10 events of 635. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.SadisticChoice