Hypotheticals and RPGers...

[seawasp]

So my good online friend burger_eater  posted this question on his LJ today. (Summary: your only child, a 5 year old girl, has been turned to a vampire without warning, and without knowledge of how. Knowing she'll live forever as a child will you turn yourselves into vampires to care for her?

My response was: 

Too too too many variables in that to answer. I need the specs on the type ov vampire, variations base on age (do you get stronger as you age, etc), position of vampires in society, existence or not of organization surrounding either or both vampires and hunters, etc., etc., and so on. Without that, reasonable answers range from "Hell yeah, we're changing!" to staking my own daughter out of mercy and necessity. And I do have a 6 year old daughter who was five only a week ago.

burger_eater responded with "you can't find out that information", and the discussion went a couple on in that vein.

I sensed some frustration there in that I think he felt it was a chilling but fairly clear choice one way or the other. To me, though, any such hypothetical can't be presented that way, because the decision is predicated on the precise details of the situation. This may come from the fact that I've been a roleplaying gamer (RPGer) for... um... 34 years now. Present me with a character-type choice, I'll analyze it the way I would playing the game. I want to know the rules. I want the stats of my opposition. I want to know the limits and advantages of the choices. It's like asking "would you throw the switch on a condemned prisoner"? Some people may answer "yes" automatically, and others may answer "no" automatically, but I'll answer "What was he condemned for? Do I think he got a raw deal on the trial? Why am I in the position of throwing the switch -- what's my authority?" and so on.

In that specific case, of course, he presented it in a context that is a VERY strong emotional one for any parent. As I pointed out, I *have* a little girl about that age, and so making a snap decision about how to address it just wouldn't EVER happen. I'd exhaust all possible resources to address and define the problem before making any decisions.

How many others out there are like me? Or are most of you more able to block out the questions and just answer the hypotheticals as framed?

Comments

[seawasp]

No, it doesn't lose any such chance, because your rephrased hypothetical doesn't improve the question, really. Of course I'd give over my own life to care for my child; I've effectively DONE so to a considerable extent -- if I had no kids, I'd be living a vastly different life today.

The hypothetical as posed has not only emotionally-charged issues associated with it but too many questions open to make a meaningful decision. You weren't asking "how much is your child's life worth", you were posing a situation without any opportunity for me to actually understand the situation, so to speak.

If you put my child in peril, I will do what I can for them. "What I can" will of course vary drastically depending on the peril, and THAT is the point. If I ask you "would you do X for Y amount of money", the answer to the question will depend on X and Y and on your own personal preferences. You handed me X, but didn't hand me Y, so to speak.

[burger-eater.livejournal.com]

Most parents give over a portion of their lives to care for their kids--some give up even more than that for a child with special needs. But I notice you skipped over the second question, about whether you would take on her condition if it meant you could protect her for her endless life.

And if I told you that she was still your same old daughter, but with the fangs, thirst for (small amounts) of blood and aversion to sun/garlic, if I said she stopped aging and developing but didn't show any signs of being "unholy," and if I said there was no guarantee the transformation would work the same way for you... Well, you don't have enough information to act yet and you don't know what you'd do.

Which is perfectly fine.

[seawasp]

I didn't skip the question, I pointed out there was insufficient data as of yet to make the decision. And no need to make it for quite some years. I would do what was best for her in the long run. What that is depends on exactly what the condition is, how it affects her -- and you've only touched the surface -- what else is, or can be, learned about it, what other events may happen in the interim, and so on.

There's no effective way to HIDE the condition, though you might tapdance around calling it "vampirism' for several years (though I'd bet not).

The "unholy" bit's a red herring, really; that's just one possible aspect of one set of vampires, and not even the worst possible aspect.

Taking on her condition would eliminate many people's ability TO take care of the daughter, even if I assume there aren't any negative PSYCHOLOGICAL limitations of the condition, just the physical ones described. I'd have to stop working except as a writer, and even there my work's going to be rather circumscribed. I suppose I, personally, might be able to get some traction from being the only writer of vampire fiction who's writing from experience. But as a general thing, taking on that condition without the RESOURCES to basically survive forever on is going to be problematic at best. You can't care for your child if you can't work anywhere, unless you're already rich.

[burger-eater.livejournal.com]

It's not a red herring at all; it's put there in an attempt to head off the "God wants me to kill her" thing, which some people (here and in my own comments) seem determined to invoke.