What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

Forum Game Would You Rather...

I flip-flopped twice on this one. I initially thought I'd want #2, so as to spare my loved ones the soul-numbing weight of eternity, but then I changed my mind and figured I'd want to bear that burden in their place. Then I realized it would be worse that way, because then I would have to bear the burden of either being alone for eternity or go numb from making new friends and family and then losing them over and over again. At least if all of my loved ones lived forever, they would have each other.

So, I pick #2.

Would you rather:

1. Be forced to fight for a cause you were ambivalent to, or didn't believe in?
2. Believe in a cause that you knew was utterly, hopelessly impossible to even come close to achieving?
 
#2, although I know many examples where I'd have picked #1. But for the sake of others, I pick #2.

Would you rather:
1. Be forced to listen Rebecca Black's 'Friday' for eternity?
2. Be forced to listen to Justin Bieber for eternity?
(I know, both of them would suck. *maniacal laugh*)
 
I choose option two. Both are terrible, but choice one is a single song over and over again-- choice two is (I'm guessing) an entire awful discography placed on shuffle. It'll stave off the madness longer, give me time to finish my memoir.

Which brings me to my proposition! Would you rather:
1. Be forced to read Justin Beiber's memoir?
OR
2. Be forced to read the insanity-riddled memoir written by a man who was forced to listen to Justin Bieber music until his death?

"Day 145,
Whilst cleaning barbecue sauce from my 'Just a Belieber' commemorative plate, I noticed something strange. Barely audible in the third stanza of Call Me Maybe, you can hear a voice speaking. It is so tiny as to be unheard to all but the most trained ears. It says, in its tiny way, 'This is purgatory.' I've observed it thirteen times today, and have begun work on deciphering other messages left behind in the music by the owner of this tiny, nearly imperceivable voice."

ALTERNATIVELY, JUSTIN BIEBER'S MEMOIR:

"April 3,
TODAY HIP HOP EMBRACED ME AND I WENT SWIMMEDING IN A POOL OF MONEY BEFORE GOING DRAG RACING"
 
Looks for the third option but settles for 2 At least I can walk away once I am done....

Would you rather ::

7) Face Predator in mortal combat?

or

11) Face Alien in mortal combat?
 
I'd rather face a Predator in mortal combat. They at least have honour, and may be inclined to let you live should you impress them.

Would you rather...
1. Be stranded alone in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean.
2. Be stranded alone in a space shuttle in deep space.
 
2. At least the view would be fantastic.

Would you rather:
1. Have a time machine that only traveled to the past?
2. Have a time machine that only traveled to the future?
 
Gonna have to go with option number one. The future is uncertain, and since you can't come back I think I'd rather play it safe and go back in time to 1996 and buy all the Google and Apple stock I could with my childhood savings bonds. Then I just work minimum wage until 2011 and sell it all for a grand fortune. It'd be like traveling to an alternate yesterday where I'm fabulously wealthy.

So, along time travel lines... Would you rather:
1. Go back in time and buy Google and Apple stock

OR

2. Go WAY back in time and invent a major technology (Steam locomotion, smokeless powder, petroleum refinement, steel, etc)
 
1. Go back in time and buy Google or Apple (or similar) stock. Less chance of fucking up the timeline, and most of the inventors of the items mentioned in option 2 rarely saw a dime.

Would you rather...

1. Be transformed into another humanoid species, but be forever unable to speak or write any language spoken by humans in the entire history of our species.
2. Be transformed into a non-humanoid animal (IE: No monkies or great apes), but be able to speak and write in whatever languages you currently happen to know.
 
Definitely 2. I want to be a French speaking hippo!:p

Would you rather:
1. Be CEO of a company that only makes environmentally unfriendly products and earn a fortune?
2. Be CEO of a company that makes environmentally friendly products, but earn nothing?

Or better said, do you care more about money, or the environment?
 
I'd choose option one, then retire to being the guy from option two with my vast wealth. It's got this really cool atonement angle that I love, plus vast wealth. Which I also love.

Would you rather:
1. Be locked in a kitchen stocked with spices, sauces, and plenty of cooking equipment; yet the only actual food in the walk-in is meat? The meat is human flesh. You can be assured the human died of a heart-attack, is disease-free, and was completely okay with the idea of their corpse being eaten. The meat is already butchered into steak cuts, ground loin, etc. and well prepared.

2. Locked in the same kitched, with the people meat replaced by a living horse. Which you have to kill. Then eat.

Water is plentiful and you're locked in the kitchen until you prepare a few meals and eat them.
 
2. Horse is safer. Cannibalism causes health and psychological issues.

Would you rather:
1. Go back in time and save the Titanic.

2. Go back in time and stop 9/11 from occurring.

Both would have both positive and negative consequences on society as both caused increases in security regarding transportation.
 
I would take option 2. 9/11 also caused the American invading Iraq, the war on terror and tension in the Middle East. You could stop that.

Would you rather:
1. Fight in World War One?
2. Fight in WW2?
 
While I don't disagree with preferring to stop 9/11, thinking that is was a direct cause of the war on terror or tension in the Middle East is simply unfair. Yes, it was the impetus behind the US invasion of Iraq, but the issues in the Middle East are so much more complicated and much more far-reaching back into history (long before the United States even existed as British colonies) than that, and blaming the US for the social, political, and religious volatility over there is just scapegoating. Catholic Europe and the Ottomans were at vehement odds for hundreds of years before the New World was widely colonized, and the ideological and ethnic tensions in that area existed thousands of years even before that. Stopping 9/11 would have minimal effect on the problems over there.

Anyway... :)

I would choose option #2 - fight in WWII. In WWI, technology had outrun conventional military tactics, and the resulting lack of experience and wisdom led to wholesale slaughter for practically no gain whatsoever in almost every battle. Not that WWII was much prettier, but at least the leaders had a better idea of what they were doing. Also, WWI introduced a plethora of new weapons capable of killing people in such horrendously grotesque manners so far beyond inhumane that the international community agreed to make them taboo. Finally, WWI boiled mostly down to simple nationalism and imperialism, while WWII was fought over nobler and more important ideals.

In the (possibly not-so distant) future, would you rather:

1. Remain on an Earth that is wracked with overpopulation, social strife, and oppressively intrusive government regulation on every aspect of daily life, but be able to maintain a life with sufficient material comforts and a satisfying social network?

2. Leave the world you know behind you, abandoning friends and extended family to live a hard pioneer life on newly-colonized Mars fraught with never-ending labor and few creature comforts, but free to run your own life the way you see fit?
 
I suppose I could get in on this.

2. I would take up the cause onto Mars. Living a boring and buttered life with nothing accomplished, or seen, under one's belt is fine for some. I, on the other hand, wouldn't mind being made to work all day if it meant gathering together an orderly future on a new frontier. Sure, freedom is a nice perk, but that's more of a side-effect or symptom of taking such an untamed path in life. I'd prefer it simply for the challenge to exist in a new and exciting place.

On the subject of futures.

Would you rather live in a future where:

1. The world transcends nature. Science has advanced far enough to achieve flying cars, using light-weight metals and clean energy resources. Everything is made with advanced, synthetic fibers or carbon-structures. Every phone is strong as a Nokia. Buildings are sturdy and built taller than ever, and can withstand the tests of time and storms. Cities become towering acropolises because of such advancement, making a modern heaven of technological achievement. There is little in the way of worry of any natural disaster due to this altitude and defense, and the future of space colonization is extremely close with sturdy, easy to produce materials. However, nature is left behind, and even choked out in the wake of such advancement, and further focus must be made to synthetically create what used to be natural.

2. The world embraces nature. Science has advanced in a different direction. Bio-engineering has evolved quite literally into something completely different than what it was. Life becomes technology, synthetic materials are replaced by engineered ones, grown and harvested. Artificial life takes the place of technology, with every device having some sort of living part, or is almost alive itself. Devices are mostly photosynthetic, using an engineered process of using the sun's own energy to make its own. Cars are replaced with an almost semi-sentient and smooth aperture that can eat and take in from earth's plants and animals for fuel. Cities are just masses of comfortable, ultra-modern enclaves built into grown forests bent to become housing from the sowing. Yet, by settling back into nature's cycle, humanity becomes vulnerable to the natural process of life instead of living above it.
 
#1. By embracing nature you embrace death along with life. By transcending nature you do not accept that death is necessary, and by transcending the natural life you can overcome death. By reaching for the stars, environmental impact can become a non-issue as industry takes to already barren worlds and efforts could be put into place to clean up what mess humanity has made in the process of breaking our shell and taking to the stars. If such efforts are not possible, or in either case, humanity could then search for other garden worlds- or create our own- for leisure. Harvesting garden worlds would be unnecessary as barren worlds can have all the necessary resources without ravaging an ecosystem. Leaving garden worlds, such as earth presently is, for luxury and NOT for industry.


Would you rather:

A) Achieve immortality through technological transhumanism. (Sacrificing organic life for a digital/cybernetic existence). The process prevents the idea that you could eventually return to an organic body, let alone your original flesh.

B) Achieve agelessness within your natural body, but remain at risk of death. (Forgoing a robotic body to keep your flesh fresh). The process prevents the notion of eventually accepting a different body either due to how it works, or because body-swapping or "Backing up" your mind was never invented.
 
B) Robits simply can't feel what organic people can. The five senses simply cannot be recreated by metal.

Alright, this one is inspired by one of my irritating customers.
Would you rather...
1. Be a bully for the rest of your life.
2. Be bullied for the rest of your life.
 
I'd rather be a bully. Nothing says you can't bully the would-be bullies rather than the would-be victims. Though of course the would-be bully is now the victim. I stronghanded my own bullies early in life and I've never even seen a bully since, that was back in third grade.
Not smart to pick on someone who's family is gifted in violent arts.
That said, I bully myself more than enough.


Would you rather:

A) Full-immersion Virtual Reality gets invented, and by extension Augmented Reality.

B) Interstellar Travel gets invented, and by extension suspended animation becomes a reality.
 
Virtual reality. If there's a flood its all gone anyhow, but at least i can swim.


And so can cows.

Would you rather:
A) Have the power to change the color of anything/anyone.
B) Have the power to determine which direction something/someone was facing.
 
Hmmm.... Thats a difficult one though I'll go for changing someones direction. I can quite see me standing ouside a classroom/lecture hall subtly causing everyone to exits to do a 180 and go back in again. No one escapes the Education inquistion.

There is a large intercontinental war going on, you are a scientist in-charge of a large research lab who's inventions could change the outcome of the war in your countries favor:

A) Invent a contemporary of skynet, a central computer able to controll many slave units. This would allow maximum co-ordination, information sharing and better odds of success. Should the project turn against its creators then they will be wiped out.
Statistics:
80% chance of success
10% chance of rebellion
30% chance of achieving sentience
50% chance of eventually scouring the world of life

B) Invent a contemporary of the EDI (Enhanced Defence Intellegance) from the film "Stealth" an AI system that can be installed into each unit individually. These units would be indipendant of each other. Much easier to destroy and have a lesser chance of success.
Statistics:
30% chance of success
5% chance of going rougue individually
20% chance of gaining sentience
30% of an eventual robot revolution ending in a matrix like scenario
 
Holy cow Zain, you did your research. Well this is a hard one and I'm not very good in change maths. I'll go with #1, bigger chance of success.

Would you rather?:
1. Starve to death
or
2. Die of an ugly disease

A scenario I obviously don't wish to anyone.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top