Who's fault was it?

**simeonalo** · **Missing since:** 27 Jul 2009 **Notes left:** 3535

KM wrote:

From most to least guilty, my order was Wilhelm, the King, Celestine, and then the Bull.

Wilhelm had the most power over the situation. Unlike with the royal obligation for the King, there would be no consequences for Wilhelm if he decided to call the whole thing off -- but instead he forced himself on her. One decision from him could've prevented the entire thing.

He forced himself on Celestine just like how Steve forced himself on Cheryl.

I've noticed that putting the Bull first doesn't really show the guilt part of this test, it's more of blaming the thing/person who killed Celestine. In this case, Dahlia (as I see it. Cheryl sees Dahlia as the "monster" that killed Harry, it wasn't the car crash. It would signify the car crash as an event, but it should be a person.) Putting the Bull first is actually putting Dahlia at fault.

**AuraTwilight** · 20 Jan 2010

But the bull is also something with no name, no consciousness, only doing what it does naturally. I would imagine that Dahlia is Wilhelm, if anything, as she's tearing Celestine from her father, and her father is helpless to do anything about it. And Wilhelm is what causes Celestine to run off anyway.

**X-rust** · **Missing since:** 03 Sep 2009 **Notes left:** 111

No one is fault. The confluence of circumstances

My choice:

**jdnation** · **Missing since:** 04 Mar 2007 **Notes left:** 3364

X-rust wrote:

No one is fault. The confluence of circumstances

My choice:

How'd that work out? Or does the game still measure it down to the distance of mm?

**X-rust** · **Missing since:** 03 Sep 2009 **Notes left:** 111

Quote:

How'd that work out?

King was guilty ^_^

**AuraTwilight** · 21 Jan 2010

Just take them all off the board entirely, and line them up perfectly evenly. It'll let you do that.

KM · 21 Jan 2010

^I'll have to try that.

My sister did the same as X-rust. She threw them all at the opposite end of the board. We were wondering if Dr. K was going to say something to us about avoiding responsibility or indecisiveness or something, but... nope: "Poor Bull..."

**OrlandoEastwood** · 22 Jan 2010

I didn't even rearrange it and Kauffman said; "You didn't ignore the facts."

**Apocali** · **Missing since:** 16 Sep 2009 **Notes left:** 274

I went for the king being the most guilty, due to my reasoning, that as the king, he could easily make an exception to any law, he is the law after all. Plus another part of that reasoning is that he was to blame also because he didn't heed his daughter's pleas and I saw that as being a bad father as well. Then it was Wilhelm, who started it all, followed by Celestine, who I saw as completely innocent aside from the mistake of running into the bull's territory, and finally followed by the bull, who I just saw as an animal naturally defending its territory.

I remember Dr. K showing pity towards the king due to my choice. I'm sure it ties into Harry somehow, but I'm not really sure how.

**cascade88** · 23 Jan 2010

cascade88 wrote:

Prince -> King -> Bull -> Celestine

If the prince had not pressed the issue so much, if only he could have went for a different bride, then none of this would have ever started in the first place. I blame Celestine's father second-most, for if he had simply stood up for his daughter, protocol be-damned, and said no, then again, if wouldn't have happened.

Now I know it's not as if the bull killing her was premeditated or something (obviously it wasn't) but I suppose I list Celestine as least at fault, because none of it was by her design. She reacted accordingly to being put in a situation that she absolutely did not want to be in. She was brave, and at least attempted to flee, and well who on earth could blame the poor girl? But yeah, that's how I see that.

I did it this way in-game. Dr. K said in effect,

"Poor Wilhelm. I know, you're thinking that if he really loved Celestine, he wouldn't have forced the marriage."

Something like that.

**lbsword** · **Missing since:** 05 Jan 2008 **Notes left:** 113

I honestly couldn't blame Celestine, I mean, she was about to get forced into sex and then got trampled by a bull...

I said:

Bull- Cause he directly killed her

Prince- Cause he forced sex, which made her run away

King- Remember he HAD to approve the marriage, so what is he supposed to do?

Celestine- She got forced in a marriage, then trampled, how could you blame her?

**MaverickT16** · **Missing since:** 05 Sep 2012 **Notes left:** 7

lbsword wrote:

I honestly couldn't blame Celestine, I mean, she was about to get forced into sex and then got trampled by a bull...

I said:

Bull- Cause he directly killed her

Prince- Cause he forced sex, which made her run away

King- Remember he HAD to approve the marriage, so what is he supposed to do?

Celestine- She got forced in a marriage, then trampled, how could you blame her?

I had this exact line up also based on exactly the same logic.
Are you sure you're not me? Great minds...

**Ryantology** · 08 Sep 2012

Hey MaverickT16, while we prefer people to seek out old threads over making duplicates, we also prefer that it not be done just to signify agreement with a post made almost three years ago.

Welcome to you, though.

**Mephisto** · 14 May 2013

King, Prince, Woman then the Bull.

Kaufmann said I was wrong about the King, since he was only following the "protocols". Bullshit. The King only answers to a God, he could've changed that kind of mentality and nobody would do a thing to question his authority (only in his back).

The bull is just an animal. It doesn't reason. The woman didn't threatened it but if it felt threatened then there's nothing you can do...

**Glenn** · **Missing since:** 30 Jul 2011 **Notes left:** 450

I had the same order as Mephisto.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone would say Celestine is most at fault. If the King would have listened to common sense none of that would have happened.

**AuraTwilight** · 15 May 2013

Quote:

Kaufmann said I was wrong about the King, since he was only following the "protocols". Bullshit. The King only answers to a God, he could've changed that kind of mentality and nobody would do a thing to question his authority (only in his back).

That's...no, you guys. It's not a God that lays down protocols. It's the people the King serves, including previous kings. His conscience, if that's weighing in.

You know the French Revolution? Kings get murdered if they fuck with the social order and the people don't like it.

Maybe the King could've changed protocol; the simple example doesn't give us context. But we can assume the king was supposed to be doing what was "moral" for their culture. That's the entire point of the exercise in a nutshell.

**Mephisto** · 15 May 2013

^ You misunderstand, dear Aura.
I never said that the protocols are laid down by a God. I said that a King only answer to a God. All except the Church are beneath a king's authority.

But I get the other point. The "What was moral for their culture" bit.

**AuraTwilight** · 15 May 2013

Quote:

^ You misunderstand, dear Aura.
I never said that the protocols are laid down by a God. I said that a King only answer to a God. All except the Church are beneath a king's authority.

And my point is that's not true. They also have to answer to their people. The idea that kings could do whatever they want without any sort of reprimand is the mark of a King that got executed or brought his kingdom to ruin. Almost all good kings in history understood that happy people were productive people who didn't raid the castle and murder the King and his whole goddamn family.

**Ryantology** · 15 May 2013

Maybe wrong in an objective sense, but as there is no right and wrong answer to this puzzle by design, I think it's an interesting perspective and (because I feel the way you do, Aura) not one I even considered.

Who's fault was it?
Moderator: Moderators

Who is online

Who's fault was it? Moderator: Moderators

Who is online

Who's fault was it?
Moderator: Moderators