Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and talk about anything you'd like.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

Exercise One: Another Robin Hood test.

A man sees the face of his dead wife growing out of the ceiling over his bed. Every morning it wakes him up by strangling him with its long tongue and accurately predicting natural disasters. No matter where he sleeps, the face always follows him, and every few weeks it's joined by the face of a stranger moaning in agony and screaming about how there's nothing there on the other side. The man starts sending in warnings to local news stations and arrives on scene to natural disasters, saving hundreds of lives.

However, he also saves a serial killer and Hitler himself among everyone else. Hitler conspires to expose the man as a devil worshipper because he looks too Jewish for his tastes, so he follows the man home and becomes devoured by the flesh amalgam of disaster-predicting faces that is growing on the man's ceiling. The faces, hungering for more blood, start predicting the Serial Killer's patterns as he starts murdering more people, in hopes that the man will follow them and  bring the serial killer within devouring distance. However, the man has had enough of this shit and burns down his house, murdering the three people that witnessed him doing this, and he runs off into the woods, never to be seen again.

Order the man, the faces, Hitler, and The Serial Killer from least to most evil. Explain your reasoning.

Exercise Two: Heroes and Villains.

2a. Order these supervillains from the least to the most evil. Explain why.

Villain 1. The Unabomber, except he only sends rapidly expanding dildos in the mail that blow up people's mailboxes and make people's houses semi-uninhabitable from their sheer size. He bribes all legal officials in the area into letting him do this scot-free, insisting that "It's just a prank, bro". (Although he totally does mean to kill some people with his dildos, he never actually succeeds.)

Villain 2. An undead Nazi supersoldier. He was supposed to be a regular undead supersoldier, but they only had Hitler's soul, and they decided to put it in the body of a Black Jewish preacher to balance things out. Problem is, the preacher was blind, so Hitler has no idea that he's an entirely different race, and he goes around committing hate speech and then pussying out because he doesn't realize he has super strength.

Villain 3. A Wild West Gunslinger who robs banks by calling all the guard's families and threatening to sneak into their houses and molest their children if they don't drop what they're doing and go home right now. He never actually molests children, although it's always very ambiguous as to whether he actually would follow through or not.

Villain 4. A completely invisible man with an infinite supply of completely invisible lego bricks, who goes around people's bedrooms and giving them intense foot pain when they get out of bed in the morning, or lining the toilet seat with lego bricks and sealing off the hole with completely invisible plastic wrap.

Villain 5. A man with a pompadour and disturbingly high-waisted stripy pants. He is a master of disguise, and frequently kidnaps heroes and gives himself disproportionate amounts of ice cream for free.

2b. If you had to combat these villains, which of these heroes would you be? Explain why.

Hero 1. Batman, except instead of a bat, he dresses up like a gun, and he shoots people with his face. His parents were KO'd in front of him one night at an opera house, so he's decided that he will never use the weapons of his parent's assaulter and only murder criminals, never arrest them.

Hero 2. A Wild West Cowboy who stops criminals from fighting him by threatening to suffocate people in a bag made of skinned baby faces. He always follows through on his threats, although it's very ambiguous as to whether or not he was actually the one who skinned all those babies.

Hero 3. A Rambo-esque Vietnam badass who's seen so much shit that his mind has blocked out almost everything Vietnam-related. He thinks he's spent the entirety of the 60s and 70s as the drummer for a folk band getting into weirdly brutal barfights with Asian KKK members, and he even goes so far as to say that Vietnam never happened, and was actually a government conspiracy. He continually has vivid dreams and flashbacks about innocuous 60's things, like the Beatles, Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots, Motorcycles, and Pinball, and he has no idea why. This makes him even more paranoid, and he fights crime not because they're doing the wrong thing, but because they're obviously part of the corporate police syndicate assaulting his mind with subliminal messaging to get him to buy all this 60s shit.

Hero 4. A completely invisible Klezmer-Jazz clarinetist with a completely invisible and indestructible clarinet. He is completely blind and navigates by echolocation with his sweet music. When confronted by his foes, he will play at a pitch so high and so loud that their heads will explode. Because he only hears his clarinette while that's happening, he assumes he's only knocked them out and continues going on his merry way, leaving much collateral death and shattered windows in his wake.

Hero 5. A man who just plays sports with kids while everyone else commits heinous crimes. He is completely oblivious to all of these other people and has no actual effect on the outcome.

2c. Order all these heroes and villains into least evil to most evil, explain your reasoning.

Exercise Three: Two Girls One Body

There's a two-headed woman. (Or two-headed guy if you prefer.) Both heads are completely independantly thinking individuals with equally independant personalities. Unlike fused twins, which have the appearance of being two-headed, these two can feel and choose to control/fight for control over all different parts of their body on either side. These are the rules.

3a. You're in a relationship with one of the heads. The other head is in a relationship with someone else. If they have sex with the other person, is it cheating?

3b. If one head wants to only have sex with you, and the other head wants to only have sex with the other person, would one head be raping the other by having otherwise consensual sex with either party? Would you be raping one of the heads?

3c. If one of the heads can temporarily turn off their connection to the nerves in their genitals in order to not feel or partake in this sex that they don't want to partake in, would it still be rape if the only other party involved in this sex would be feeling it and also have consented earlier?

3d. If one of the heads is a Buddhist Monk or something, are they still chaste if the person currently driving their body has sex? How about if they can turn it off like in the previous hypothetical? Are they still vegetarian if the other head eats meat?

3e. If both the heads tune out and decide not to feel the sex that they don't want is it still rape?

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago


I'm pretty sure this is just meant as a parody of morality tests, but screw it, I'm going to answer this anyway.


-The man is the least evil because number one, he saves hundreds of lives. In fact, he's a hero. He also lets literal Hitler die, so that's a huge plus. He's driven to insanity by the faces and ends up becoming a serial killer, but that's more from being driven to madness than actual evil, so in my book, he's the least evil.

-The serial killer is the third most evil because I mean, he's a serial killer and murders people, but he's not as bad as the rest.

-The faces are the second most evil because not only is their morning ritual is to strangle a national hero with a tongue as well as just generally trying to scare him to death, but they also like to eat people. Sure, the person they ate was literal Hitler, but still. Some may say that they're less evil because they predicted natural disasters and saved hundreds of lives, but I have a feeling they were just trying to creep out the man and weren't *really* after saving people.

-Hitler is the most evil because he's fukkin Hitler. I mean, what more do you want me to say? If you replaced his name with 'racist fuck' he'd probably be the second least evil, but no. You chose literal Hitler.


-Villain 4 because Legos just aren't evil. He's more a practical joker with superpowers than any kind of villain.

-Villain 5 because he just kidnaps heroes. There's no mention of him doing anything particularly bad once he kidnaps them, so he's really not that evil.

-Villain 3 because wow, that's really messed up, but he also doesn't actually hurt anyone, so I can't say he's as evil as literal Hitler.

-Villain 1 because he's the only one actively trying to kill people, albeit ineffectively. 

-Villain 2 because he's literal Hitler. What is up with you and Hitler? Look, pussy Hitler is still Hitler.


I'd rather be hero 5 because all those villains are so useless, it'd be embarrassing to fight them.


-Least evil is Hero 5 because he's the only (probably) decent person.

-Villains 4, 5, 3, 1 with reasoning stated above.

-Hero 4 because he has no idea that he's evil. He's a murderer sure, but he doesn't know that. He's above hero 5 and villains 4, 5, 3, and 1 because he's actually killed people, but below the rest because he has no idea he's killed people.

-Hero 3 because he kills people, so that's pretty evil, but he also has so many mental issues that you can almost feel bad for him if you try hard enough.

-Hero 1 because that's some pretty evil shit, but not quite as evil as the the next two.

-Hero 2 because not only does he suffocate people in a bag made of skinned baby faces, but he also suffocates people in a bag made of skinned baby faces.

-Villain 2 because yet again, he's literal Hitler. If there is anything about Hitler in the third problem, I'm quitting.

3a) I'd say all four parties would have to be in agreement about it being okay to have sex.

3b) If she doesn't consent, then yes, that's rape.

3c) Yes, if one twin is not consenting, that's rape. If you roofie a girl's drink and rape her while she's passed out and can't feel anything, that's still rape.

3d) No, if they have sex, they're not chaste because that's still their body. I'm stumped on the vegetarian one because on one hand, they aren't eating any meat, but on the other, their body still get the nutrients from meat. I'd say they could call themselves a vegetarian, but they wouldn't *really* be one, if that makes sense.

3e) Let me get the scenario straight, someone is raping them, but they turn off their feeling down there? Yes, that's still rape. Reference my response to 3c.



Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

It was only ever said that the mass of faces wanted to eat Hitler and the Serial Killer. It's entirely possible that the face mass chose The Man to save lives and reap the sinners, and he was a lazy bastard who slept in all the time and couldn't handle the responsibility, so there was no other choice but to give him the old Homer Simpson once in a while.

But really, what did Hitler actually do? I mean, he just stood around saying racist shit, the people around him were the ones that came up with all the logistics and genocide methods and shit. I mean, hell, he was pretty much responsible for destroying the Third Reich, AND he killed Hitler. He may have been the single greatest hero WWII ever had!

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago
Put this in that thread about the Hitler game, I think you just discovered the angle it should use.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

Exercise 1:

Okay, you didn’t specify if this is pre-Holocaust Hitler or post-Holocaust Hitler so Hitler’s evil level is going to vary.

1. The demon face abomination thing I guess is the least evil. While it’s obviously some other worldly horror it managed to have a beneficial side effect where it actually did something good initially.

The most “evil” thing it was doing was tormenting the man (Choking him out with a long tongue is sort of fucked up) and then later it started thirsting for blood which considering it was Hitler and possibly a serial killer that wasn’t too bad, but with something like that, it could have had the potential to spiral out of control. We don’t know though since it didn’t get that far.

2. If this is pre-holocaust Hitler then he’s next evil since he hasn’t actually killed anyone in this scenario. The only thing of note he did was scheme against the man due to racism and then got killed. I’m tempted to say he might even be less evil than the demon face, but even pre-holocaust Hitler was an asshole enough that I’d put the demon face abomination above him.

3. The next evil is the man since he did try to make the best out of a bad situation by saving people. If he had just burned down the house with the demon face in it, he wouldn’t be evil at all since it’s completely understandable. However given that he killed 3 people who watched him commit arson, that’s sort of going over the line. I mean it’s possible being tormented night after night by a demon face abomination is going to drive someone over the edge, but he could have easily been just a little more careful and committed arson while nobody was going to be around, or wore a mask, or something so he didn’t get recognized and didn’t have to kill anyone.

4. Next evil is the serial killer. He’s still out there killing people and showing no signs of stopping.

5. Finally, if this is post-holocaust Hitler, then obviously he’s going to be the most evil even if he didn’t kill anyone in this particular scenario, we already know what he did before.

Exercise 2:

In this case, going to assume this is post-holocaust Hitler since you specified his soul meaning he’s already offed himself in the bunker.

1. Least evil is the invisible man. He’s not really doing much except pranking people.

2. I’m going to say pompadour man is next though he’s actually hard to rank. True, he’s not really doing anything excessively evil himself (Though kidnapping isn’t exactly good) he’s depriving the world of heroes that COULD be stopping other villains. So if anything he’s obstructing justice and pretty damn good at doing it since he apparently has no problem capturing heroes.

3. I’m going to say the dildo bomber is next. He’d rank higher if he actually killed anyone, but since you said he always fails, all he’s guilty of is mass vandalism and corrupting the officials.

4. Gun Slinger is next if only because I’m erring on the side of caution that the guy MIGHT actually go through with molesting the kids. He’s basically committing terrorism and plain old robbery. If someone actually calls his bluff and he actually does it then he’s even worse.

5. Hitler. You know what he did. Lol. Plus even in his ineffective form, he could still potentially cause trouble if someone gets the bright idea to do the David Chapelle “Black Klansman” treatment to him and use him as a puppet to spread Nazism.

2b. Going with Punisher Batman, though the baby skin cowboy is tempting since it’s so fucked up.

2c. Ugh, this is fucking work. Fortunately Orange and I have pretty much the same lay out. Though really I feel like I could rearrange these a few times.

Least to worst (For right now)

Normal dude - Hasn’t done anything
Invisible Man - Prankster
Pompadour - Obstructing justice
Dildo Bomber - Vandalism
Clarinet Guy - Doesn’t know he’s killing people
Rambo Guy - Killing people though insanity is a partial excuse
Punisher Batman - Killing criminals
Baby skin Cowboy - Killing criminals in a fucked up way
Gunslinger- Terrorist and possible pedo

Exercise 3.

A. No.
B. None of it is rape, unless you’re shoving your dick in the mouth of the other head.
C. Not rape.
D. No. No. And no.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

No, the Holocaust never happened during this moral exercise. I've decided now that Hitler was killed in Exercise 1 before he actually had the chance to do anything.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

Bah, that means I have to change stuff around.

So if non-holocaust Hitler died from demon head in the first exercise, then he's significantly less evil in the second one since he's still just a racist asshole as opposed to a genocidal dictator.

In that case, he's probably between Invisible Man and Pompadour Guy.

White supremacist speech coming from a black jew while perhaps disruptive is going to draw more strange looks and laughs than rally anyone unless as I said someone does the Dave Chapelle thing to him. Then he becomes a little more dangerous.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

1. The man is the least evil. He was only forcibly dragged into the whole mess by the faces in the first place. And the only reason he burned down the house and killed 3 witnesses is because he had had enough of it. He became evil because of the faces.

Faces, Serial Killer, and Hitler follow.

Faces are second least evil because they are the reason why hundreds of lives were saved, and though they include a serial killer and Hitler, the faces ate Hitler and planned to eat Serial Killer as well. This, however, is countered by the fact that because of the faces, the man killed three people and burned down a house.

Serial Killer gets the runner-up award, because...he kills. He keeps murdering people, so that's a bad thing. He, however, is not as bad if you compare to the most evil among them:

Hitler's the most evil because even though his life was saved because of the man, he still stays with his Anti-Semitic instincts and tries to prove the man's a devil worshiper. Ungrateful bastard.


2a. 2, 5, 4, 1, 3

2 because all words and no actions, though his words constitute entirely as hate speech so I'll give him that.

5 because he at least kidnaps heroes.

4 because even if he doesn't kidnap heroes, he still gives a ton of people a ton of headaches with his simple yet heinous deeds. Certainly a lego prankster sounds more evil than a man which gives himself ice cream for free.

1 because though he doesn't kill anybody, he intends to, with his inflatable sex toys. Murderous goal drives him this high up the list.

3 wins because he steals cash and threatens the kids of the guards with molestation. Even if he doesn't follow through, he exploits the psychological weaknesses of the guards, and that's just downright evil.


2b. Hero 4, because he kills by sweet music, which can shatter just about any eardrums due to its pitch. What a badass.

2c. 5, 4, 1, 3, 2

5 because he's just an average Joe.

4 because though he kills, he does not know it, and besides, he's pitiful. He only wants to play music with his indestructible clarinet.

1 because he at least has a crimefighting sense, though he never arrests criminals, only kills them.

3 because he's a misguided war veteran  who believes that everything is a big government conspiracy or something. He doesn't fight for justice too.

2 wins because he's a serial murderer who suffocates people in bags made of skinned baby faces. Brutal bastard.


3a. Nope. The other head has a mind and personality of its own, so I'll consider her as a separate person, even if she shares the body with the head-GF.

3b. As stated, both are independently thinking individuals, so that makes them separate individuals...kinda. So they won't be raping each other, mentally speaking. No, it's consensual.

3c. Physically speaking, still rape, because the other head doesn't want to partake of the intercourse.

3d. Not chaste at all. The person still sexed the body. They're also no longer vegetarian because the meat eaten by the other head nourishes both of them because they're connected, so the once-vegetarian head was nourished by meat indirectly.

3e. Yes because they don't want the sex.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

Here's some more for your consideration:

If one head masturbates when the other doesn't want them to, is it sexual assault, since it affects the other head?

If one head commits a crime, do both of them get jailed? How should the bad head be punished?

Say the guy/girl has THREE heads. If 2/3 of them want to have sex with someone, should the one head that doesn't want it be allowed by the other 2 to be a self-cockblocker?

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

1. Yes. Considering that they share the same body but think separately, this is still a form of sexual assault since it affects someone.

2. No, only the bad head should. However, unless there is some way of limiting the extent of an induced coma, there is no way to punish the bad head without hurting the good head.

3. Yes. They all think separately, they should allow the unwilling head to cockblock herself.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago
The first two questions aren't that appealing, the third is highly intriguing though. What's the method of conflict over priorities? The analogue I'm using is the twin pilots in a Pacific Rim Jaeger, who are not in sync- they're distinct, they're inside the Jaeger and cannot be taken out of it for this discussion, and they have different priorities and goals. Now, if one of them wants to move left and the other does not, how do they resolve it? Does the body go into spasms or shut down? Do they experience mental whiplash until a compromise is reached? Does the body choose a 'default' (autonomous) behavior? Does the Jaeger roll dice and decide which way to go? Does the Jaeger secretly develop its own AI (this one's case specific, but while you're answering questions, may as well answer this one as well)? These are material facts necessary to make a judgement. Without understanding the method of resolution, I cannot give a meaningful answer. In any case, my gut reaction is to consider both heads the same 'entity,' and if both are not aligned on an issue, then it is not consent. The existence of two independently thinking heads in the same entity does not allow them to act independent of interdependent consideration.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

I'd say there's 5 "Control Sections" of the body set by regions of skelatal muscle. Between each limb and the torso, they can be divvied up between the heads like a He-man. At least when the heads are in harmony. Hypothetically, when the heads are in harmony, either one can control as many muscles as they want, even drive the whole body around, unless they are challenged for control by the other head. A head currently controlling less muscles than the other has willpower to spare, and will therefore automatically take charge of whatever it wants that the other head is controlling until their willpower is equally spent.

Essentially, they can each control 2.5 body regions before they reach a stalemate, and would have to fight physically, either threatening to make the body fall down and bring the other head to some pain or just wounding the enemy head in some way. Border gore is key here, make sure your influence is spread throughout key points in the body- monopolizing an entire region would not be worth it when you can make it not worth controlling for your enemy twin!

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago
Exercise Three: Two Heads, One Body

I consider the combined heads and body to be one legal entity, subject to one count on a census. For them to be considered to assent to something, both minds would have to be in agreement, and contracts engaged during that period would be legally binding (the analogue is lucid phase with a mentally unstable person, contracts made at that time are valid). Another analogue is that the two heads are similar to the left and right half of a brain, as they both control discretionary functions and thoughts but may disagree. For anyone to be dating this individual, they would need to be dating both minds, otherwise it would again be an issue of non-consent with the whole that is this person. This also goes against them, both heads would need to pass a driving test to be licensed, though for school exams it is up to the discretion of the administration to decide whether one head answering the question is enough for both (and whether they're allowed to talk to the other head during the exam, as I assume they do not share thoughts directly).

3a. You're in a relationship with one of the heads. The other head is in a relationship with someone else. If they have sex with the other person, is it cheating?

Yes if it's done without your knowledge and consent. Same as normal cheating

3b. If one head wants to only have sex with you, and the other head wants to only have sex with the other person, would one head be raping the other by having otherwise consensual sex with either party? Would you be raping one of the heads?

Yes, the lucid/insane argument made earlier. Also, you would not be raping a 'head' but the individual as a whole (as the two heads are indivisible from the person)

3c. If one of the heads can temporarily turn off their connection to the nerves in their genitals in order to not feel or partake in this sex that they don't want to partake in, would it still be rape if the only other party involved in this sex would be feeling it and also have consented earlier?

Still rape, though then the question is does it become consensual, because the individual chose to suppress thoughts they did not want (in this case the stimulation)

3d. If one of the heads is a Buddhist Monk or something, are they still chaste if the person currently driving their body has sex? How about if they can turn it off like in the previous hypothetical? Are they still vegetarian if the other head eats meat?

No, both have to be monks, and both have to be vegetarians to qualify for the entity as a whole. The veg example is easy - think if you're serving an order and have no idea if the person behind the screen is veg or non-veg. If they're ordering and eating non-veg, then they're non-veg.

3e. If both the heads tune out and decide not to feel the sex that they don't want is it still rape?

You've phrased this clumsily. If you had worded it along the lines of - if both heads decide to ignore the sex, is it rape (you're presupposing guilt in this wording), in which case I'd argue it isn't, as both are aware of what's happening and choosing to ignore it (while I assume giving assent to letting the person have sex with them).

4. If one head masturbates when the other doesn't want them to, is it sexual assault, since it affects the other head?

No, an entity cannot sexually assault itself. It may do weird things which require oversight and therapy, but it cannot technically harm itself.

5. If one head commits a crime, do both of them get jailed? How should the bad head be punished?

Yes. The whole should be punished according to the crime, without needing to prove complicity/accomplice status. The entity decided to commit a crime, similar logic as the veg/non-beg

6. Say the guy/girl has THREE heads. If 2/3 of them want to have sex with someone, should the one head that doesn't want it be allowed by the other 2 to be a self-cockblocker?

Yes, the entity at whole is not at harmony, therefore the decision cannot be lucid. However, if the entity takes a voting system (majority rules) or the like, and records that decision publicly, then two can over-rule one.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

Exercise 1

The Faces - They saved lives and ended one that nobody would miss,

Hitler - As far as this story goes, he didn't really do anything but try to ruin the man's credibility.

Serial Killer - Because he was out to kill some more.

The Man - Because I don't think killing those three people was necessary

Exercise 2

Villain 2 (Do you have something against Hitler?) - He isn't doing anything wrong outside of being an asshole.

Villain 1 - Seems more like a nuisance than a real threat.

Villain 5 - Apparently he's only a threat to heroes and ice cream shops.

Villain 4 - Because those legos could seriously hurt someone, especially if they were an elder and fell as a result of stepping on one

Villain 3 - Because bank robbery. Also, threatening to molest children isn't okay.


I would be Hero 2, because it would be funny to suffocate people with bags made of skinned baby faces.

Exercise 3

3a.) Yes because its still the same body. It may not be emotional cheating, but it is physical. In this case, I'd probably just cut the other head off if it doesn't hurt the one I'm with.

3b.) Would one head be raping the other? Technically no. The other head is technically "making" the other sit through it, but the head isn't actually doing anything to the other one. I am. In my case, yes it would be rape.

3c.) Yes, it would still be rape. It's the same as drugging someone and having sex with their unconscious body. The victim may not feel (or remember) what's happening, but that doesn't mean it isn't rape (Fun fact: Raping an unconscious person in California isn't considered a violent crime anymore).

3d.) Technically yes. As far a vegetarianism goes, it only states that you must not eat meat. If one head isn't eating meat, it is a vegetarian by definition.

3e.) It depends. Did they consent to the sex and get bored of it halfway through? If so, it's not rape.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

“Do you have something against Hitler?”

Lol. Only Danaos.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

I just don't see why you're all calling Hitler evil. He's doing the least out of all of them.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

Well yeah he turns out to be less evil in most of these scenarios now that Sent clarified.

When Orange and I did it though, Sent hadn't clarified whether this was Hitler that killed a bunch of Jews or not. Which is why I added some extra steps to my answers at first.

However, it's still a funny statement for you to say to Sent, "Do you have something against Hitler?" since it ends up sounding more like you're upset that Sent's picking on the man by putting him in these scenarios in the first place.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

I'm actually surprised more people haven't been putting the lego guy higher up. Like, have you actually stepped barefoot on a lego before? And these are invisible legos, too. It's not like you can just see where they are, pick them all up, and then not drop them/never step on them ever again. Same goes with the toilet seat- You can turn yourself into a bloody mess and get shit all over yourself without even knowing why.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago

If Pomp dude was working with a real villain, he'd probably be the greatest threat since he could capture all the heroes while the other guy took over the world.

Morality test Mark II

4 years ago
The first two are boring but I like the 3rd.

3a. only if it's with my other head or the guy is sexier than I am

3b. yes, but femme zaphod doesn't have human rights like the rest of us normal creatures.

3c. no, cause as long as there was a yes in the equation somewhere it isn't rape

3d. yes, if they believe so. yes. yes.

3e. yes, in that case it is rape because both said no. it wouldn't be rape if one said yes. It'd be even less rape if the older head (whichever came out first) said yes because they're more responsible and experienced in life than the other head.

Morality test Mark II

one year ago

It's come to my attention that we have lots of new and highly opinionated users on this forum. I was wondering how moral our new crop of forumites are.

Morality test Mark II

one year ago

@DeepThoughts I am especially interested in your input, you may be the most moral person on the site so far.

Morality test Mark II

11 months ago

I feel like I remember this but also do not remember this at all

where is the original test

Morality test Mark II

11 months ago

Morality test Mark II

11 months ago

I'll do the first one, since I only have a little bit of time. Least evil to most evil:

Faces - no direct evidence of evil, constantly leads to the saving of people thanks to its prophecies, harms only people that have or will commit evil. 

Pre-holocaust Hitler - assuming he hasn't killed anyone at this point, he has yet to realize his evil potential. If we are assuming a Total Evil rating for proportional Faces violence, he is eaten because of how many people will die because of him. 

Serial Killer - pretty straight forward evil, not much deep dive required. 

Man - here's where it gets interesting. He is not innocent and the actions during the test reveal his ruthless nature when he murders the witnesses to cover up his own escape. Let's look closer at Faces while we're at it.  You have the man's wife that strangles him with her tongue. There are some innuendos that we can't truly decipher, but there are definitely indications that the man harbored violent desires toward his wife (and likely mother) in the bedroom. The mention of nothing being on the other side points to the stranger being relevant, so I see that as a clue that the man likely killed his wife upon the discovery of an affair, slaying her lover in the process. Being as this was violence in a fit of passion, it does not warrant the same level of violence as the serial killer, who kills with cold intent or for sadistic pleasure. This could explain why the man is only strangled and never eaten.  Regardless, there is a darkness in his heart, as he would pursue his own selfish, temporal peace rather than save countless lives as an agent of the Faces.

Post-holocaust Hitler - you can't really argue the evil here. Got more body count than Ice-T.