On the shoulders of giants: a new multiple choices LP!

[oscar]

He killed one hunter. Now he must do the work of two hunters for the rest of his life. That is just, logical and compensative.

Saying it would glamorize murder is like saying being sent to the Gulag or a Soviet Penal Battalion was glamorous. No it fucking wasn't. It was a death penalty, just a death penalty where society manages to squeeze some use (soaking up German machine gun fire or labouring until the Siberian winter does its work) and compensation out of you before you die.

A common sense approach that is logical whether your living in the Middle Paleolithic Era or the 21st century.

 

[Jick Magger]

Except we aren't giving him the work of two hunters. We're just making the work of one hunter more hazardous, hoping that this'll somehow fix his murderous behaviour and that he'll agree to it and not just cave our heads in with a rock while we sleep and make a run for it.

 

[oscar]

And if we exile him, what's to stop him sneaking in while we sleep and carving our heads in with a rock?

Might as well get some use out of the man. His fighting spirit and murderous genes will prove useful eventually and aren't something we wish to cull.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Without knowing the circumstances of the murder, deciding that man's fate becomes rather arbitrary. For all we know, he could've been defending himself and it was the dead one who attempted to kill him. Nevertheless, I vote B, as it seems to be the better option. But for entirely non-retarded reasons:
If the murder was justified, then B would be a fitting reminder that killing one of our own is unacceptable no matter what. If the grieving family doesn't accept that, then they're idiots whose opinions don't count.
If it was not justified and the murderer is nothing but a rabid animal, then keeping him close seems better than giving him the opportunity (C) to find another tribe, murder its ruler(s) and create a nation of bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's our problem and our responsibility. We must man up and deal with it ourselves, not leave it to chance or lay it on others. He should never be allowed to reproduce, though, and any already existing children of his must not be raised by him (primitive societies didn't have the modern "family values", so it shouldn't be a problem).
Either way, the first option (A) isn't the way, as it would only encourage homicide, lawlessness and division among the tribe.

 

[Lindblum]

B for Beserker, Have him do the most dangerous of tasks to "redeem" himself. If he survives then the Fire god has granted him his favor.

If you vote C nothing's stopping him from joining the other tribe. Criminals are a resource make him work twice as hard.
For A best to not lose another hunter, democracy aside, the tribe needs comes first.

 

[Internet]

C

Senility tends to impair one's judgment. The leader in question during the last update wasn't just a big brute. It was somebody strong physically, but also intelligent and capable of commanding respect - i.e. an absolute, but competent, ruler. We could have had a fiery, creative, and youthful Alexander the Great leading our tribe to glory, goddamnit!

Until he dies at 30 of dysentery and is replaced by gonzo, the trisomic warrior prince.

"Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as sheep".

Anyway, C. Schizoids that are good at something are still schizoids and we can't have that kind of people around.

 

[AstralStorm]

"Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as sheep".

Sure, the Greeks, Spanish and Persians are definitely fine now... oh wait.
Anyway, B. With an added twist of hard labor in addition to dangerous labor. (I'm thinking mining.)
Make him do the work of two men.
If he runs, it's his problem (dropping this to C then), if he doesn't, I bet we can have someone supervise him.[/quote]

 

[Jick Magger]

Oh fuggit, flip flopping to B, so long as we're promising here that we have no real intention of redeeming this guy and just hope to work him to death. Exile's good, but making an example of him through killing him slowly via suicide missions and constant manual labour is another thing entirely. Just don't blame me if he turns into a primitive Spartacus and creates some kind of worker's revolt.

 

[Lindblum]

Oh fuggit, flip flopping to B, so long as we're promising here that we have no real intention of redeeming this guy and just hope to work him to death. Exile's good, but making an example of him through killing him slowly via suicide missions and constant manual labour is another thing entirely. Just don't blame me if he turns into a primitive Spartacus and creates some kind of worker's revolt.

Now that would be interesting, survives through all the "Tasks" eventually earning the respect of everyone in the tribe. Overthrows the Tribal Council of Old Fags and rules as the King.

 

[Jick Magger]

Or he could just, well, cave our heads in while we sleep and sell us out to the enemy tribe that everyone seems to be going on about. But that's probably just me getting paranoid again.

 

[oscar]

 

[Tigranes]

It's clearly not a decision about the dude, but about how we'll make those kinds of decisions over the next years/decades. With that in mind I vote B, there's risk in any position but it's going to keep the most resourceful people serving the needs of our tribe as opposed to going outside and creating whatever alternative.

 

[Jick Magger]

Tiny dicks were considered a sign of virility in ancient Greece. Fun fact.

 

[oscar]

Yeah. It's our style of justice:

- Vengeance (satisfy the direct emotional want of the victim)
- Compensation (the perpetrator must make amends for his crime and repay society what he has inflicted)
- Banishment/Non-lethal punishments (criminals lose their right to be one of us? Can't really see much benefit for society -or- the desire for vengeance from the victim with this one)

And can you please include an option where he can become king? Who better than the first murderer?

 

[Lindblum]

Our killer sounds like Hercules.

Juno held a grudge against Hercules and sent him into a blind frenzy, in which he killed all of his children and his wife. When Hercules regained his sanity, he sought out the Oracle at Delphi in the hope of making atonement.

 

[Internet]

"Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as sheep".

Sure, the Greeks, Spanish and Persians are definitely fine now... oh wait.
Anyway, B. With an added twist of hard labor in addition to dangerous labor. (I'm thinking mining.)
Make him do the work of two men.
If he runs, it's his problem (dropping this to C then), if he doesn't, I bet we can have someone supervise him.

[/quote]

I don't want to go off topic, but I wouldn't label Greeks and Persians as the "aggressive expansionary" tipe of civilizations, though I can see why one could make the claim for Spain. But, hey, at least they still exist/ people remember them. Who is talking about the Etruscans these days?

 

[Curufinwe]

Alright. I'm closing this since the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of B.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The elder council, pondering the various options, in the end decided to force the murderer to work the rest of his life for the tribe, taking on the most dangerous tasks to atone for his deed.
'What you did is unforgivable, unacceptable, we will not act like it never happened. So you must pay. Yet, the tribe needs everyone of its members to prosper, so we hope you can redeem yourself and that some good will come from this'.

More time passed and we drew near to the base of the big rock. Under it, far in the distance, we could see a ribbon of blue laboriously making its way towards the far off hills, winding here and there, back and forth on the green plains.

But before we could get there something else happened. The shortage of zebras now dangerous, the most cunning of the animal tamers started refusing to freely gift his livestock for the good of the tribe, demanding compensation.

'Only my ancestors' and my smarts still allow us to keep a few tamed zebras – he said – 'so my work should be adequately rewarded. I will still provide livestock to the tribe, but in exchange I want something.'
The hunters were outraged: 'This scum is just exploiting a temporary weakness of the tribe. He should be punished and his livestock confiscated, to be freely used by everyone in the time of need.'
Other animal tamers tried to take a middle ground: 'Although the timing of our friend's demands may look unseemly, he raises a good point. Our worth to the tribe is surely higher than that of most anyone else. This should be recognized, if not in goods, in status.'

So, elder council, just before reaching the great mountain a new issue arises:

A: Cave in to the demands of the greedy tamer. We need his livestock to survive, his work should be rewarded in goods.
B: Listen to the hunters. The tamer's attitude will be the tribe's downfall, he should be punished and his livestock confiscated.
C: Take a middle ground. The tamers just want their worth to the tribe recognized, they want their status to be higher than that of the scavengers, or the hunters, or the fire keepers, whose contribution to the collective is less apparent.

 

[SCO]

Lulz.

But the temptation to jump start commerce is tempting. I don't think this is the best time, confiscate that shit (but spread it to the other animal tamers, since they are the ones that know how to care for the animals, and so that the faction doesn't get too bitter).

Middle ground sucks.

 

[Vernydar]

B

An experienced scavenger tries to sway his fellow tribesmen with his arguments
"What is this piece of scum claiming right now? Compensation? What? The tribe survives thanks to the effort of all!

Like when the drought came, and the hunters mounted an expedition against the savage predators, because there was no other quarry to be had!
Like when the season of cold was extremely rigid, and the fire keepers had to work all the time, without sleep, to keep the precious fire spirit alive!"
Like when the zebras were sickly, and did not give birth for many seasons, and we scavengers searched long and far away for roots, that we may spare the zebras until they started getting better again!
And now, just because in this moment the zebras are essential, he wants compensation? And his fellow tamers are only slightly better. Better status? Never!

This egoistic man shall be allowed to send us all to death? No! I say his zebras should be confiscated, and he should join the man-killer into doing extremely dangerous duties for the tribe!"

 

[Monty]

I'm with Vernydar on this. We're still a single tribe, existing cooperatively. If we come across a big herd then suddenly the hunters would have top status again. It seems too early for intra-tribal trade or an early form of caste system.

B it is.

 

[Cassidy]

B

 

[Jack]

B - His greed is damaging to the tribe and must be punished.

 

[Kz3r0]

C: Take a middle ground. The tamers just want their worth to the tribe recognized, they want their status to be higher than that of the scavengers, or the hunters, or the fire keepers, whose contribution to the collective is less apparent.

 

[oscar]

Ah capitalism. I'll have to think about this one.

A will probably see increased specialisation of labour and inter-tribal trade. Is this a good thing? Do we want to be a private, individualistic society or a public, greater good style one?

 

[Hirato]

I also agree with Vernydar, so..
I pick B