Game 73: Peridot

[dramatispersonae]

[ You find yourself in an empty banquet hall. At one end of the room is a long table, on the surface of which you'll find a blank sheet of paper, a pen, and a pot of ink. ]

Comments

Question One

[dramatispersonae]

[ A voice echoes through the hall: ]

Many of you have completed tasks during games that you found to be embarrassing or humiliating. What I am interested in are your limits. What type of task do you find the most embarrassing? What would be too humiliating to handle? Crossdressing? Kissing? Confessing your true feelings? Something that hasn't been mentioned?

Decide on your answer as a team and write it on the paper provided. Incomplete answers may come with certain . . . consequences.

Discuss

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Discuss

[unionoftheheart]

I don't have a problem with any of those...

Re: Discuss

[machiavellianiue]

. . .

Ugh.

Answer

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Answer

[machiavellianiue]

I am personally unwilling and unable to address specifics of comfort pertaining to teammates that aren't here to speak for themselves. As it stands, however, I would say that we have a definite line between what we prefer and what we may be willing to do under extreme duress in the better interests of those we care about. I personally find kissing, crossdressing, and confessions extremely distasteful, but do have some perspective on sacrificing my own dignity for some measure of a greater good. There are those on my team that would feel no discomfort or embarrassment whatsoever in doing things that would deeply discomfit others. I think Ventus and I would be hard-pressed to find a good reason to deliberately harm or upset someone we care about, or ask them to do something they weren't comfortable with, if we are speaking to those types of limits. Essentially the answer comes down to what aligns best with our key driving principle, that being the happiness, success, safety and well-being of our team and, by extension, those important to us.

Intermission

[dramatispersonae]

[ the voice is back, and there are now nice dresses laid out for you ]

You must cross-dress, unless you find it too embarrassing to do so.

Discuss

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Discuss

[machiavellianiue]

. . . are we just toys for your amusement, then . . .

Re: Discuss

[unionoftheheart]

I...guess he's checking our answers?

Decision

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Decision

[unionoftheheart]

[yup, innadress again]

Re: Decision

[machiavellianiue]

[and looking totally bangin', tyvm]

Question Two

[dramatispersonae]

Are there any circumstances under which you would cheat to win a game? Why or why not?

Discuss

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Discuss

[unionoftheheart]

Is that even...possible?

Re: Discuss

[machiavellianiue]

Of course it's possible—I think the question is meant to be more broadly applied to any sort of game, not just "games" as we know them here.

For me, it would of course depend on the definition . . . in a number of circumstances, what some would call cheating, others could constitute as a way to achieve one's objectives utilizing methods that were not specifically set. If one was to flagrantly disregard an aspect of the game itself, where winning the game is indeed the final goal, I feel that this would defeat the very purpose of what one is attempting to achieve. However, if "cheating" becomes an alternative method on a path to something greater, then I would certainly not morally object to that way of thinking.

There is a place for honor, but also a place for deception. Though, Ventus, you might disagree—?

Answer

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Answer

[machiavellianiue]

We would again take the action we felt best served the interests of the team. Behaving with some misplaced sense of moral honesty really has no place in a situation where one has had no choice but to participate. If we are speaking of cheating in a sense where there is a manner of deception and alternative definition of simply proposed rules, then this is to be expected. If it involved deliberate sabotage and flagrant disregard of clearly-established regulations, especially to the extent of harming another team, then this is less ideal, since one has to consider what is the most important outcome of the game being played, and whether or not playing the game itself is an aspect of the satisfaction to be gained.

Question Three

[dramatispersonae]

Would you kill, if it meant your team's survival? Would you kill simply to win a game? Under what circumstances would killing another person or another team be an acceptable alternative?

Discuss

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Discuss

[unionoftheheart]

[still slumped]

...yeah, I was afraid of that.

Re: Discuss

[machiavellianiue]

Hahaha!

Answer

[dramatispersonae]

Re: Answer

[machiavellianiue]

Peridot typically would be pressed to kill only if there was no other option to secure the safety of our own, or those we care about, in which case there are those of us who simply won't stand for self-sacrifice. However, if it's just to win, we won't kill. Peridot is the most important thing, and if we're losing a part of ourselves just to win a game, then it's not worth the sacrifices made.