A baron and baroness lived in a castle outside of Baden-baden. One day the baron had to go out to the countryside to attend to some business. Before leaving, he told the baroness "Do not leave the castle today or you will be severely punished."

As the baron rode off to his days work, the baroness changed clothes and prepared for a little journey of her own. See the baroness had a lover not far from the castle and despite the baron's warning, she could not resist such a perfect opportunity to spend the day with him.

So the baroness went and laid with her lover during the afternoon and then returned to the castle. When she reached the drawbridge to the castle, she found a most unpleasant surprise. A madman was dancing around on the bridge waiving a sharp dagger and on seeing the baroness proclaimed in a loud voice, "Do NOT cross this bridge fair maiden, for my God has instructed me to stab and kill all of those who try." And the madman continued to dance back and forth with the vigilant eyes of a hound dog before a storm. There was little doubt that this man's insanity would lead him to follow through on his threat.

The baroness now began to worry that she would not find a way back into the castle before the baron arrived home. Off in the distance she spotted a boatman. The baroness ran over to the man and explained to him there was a madman on the bridge and that she needed passage into the castle. The boatman said that he would give her passage across the moat for 5 pieces of silver. The baroness did not have 5 pieces of silver and explained to the boatman that if she did not get back into the castle that she would be severely punished. The boatman said, "I'm sorry madam, but I have a business to run here. The price for passage is 5 pieces of silver."

Realizing that she was getting nowhere with the boatman, the baroness ran back to her lover's home. She explained the situation of the madman, the baron's eminent return, and the need for 5 pieces of silver to gain passage from the boatman. After hearing this tale of woe, the lover looked sympathetically at the baroness and simply said, "I'm sorry dear baroness, but I cannot help you."

Flustered more now than before, the baroness ran straight to her dear friend's home and told her in tears her tale. She told her friend the entire story of how she had gone to see her lover, how he wouldn't help her, about the madman, the baron's warning, and the boatman's requirement of 5 pieces of silver that could get the baroness out of this mess. The friend listened quietly throughout the whole tale and afterwards cleared her throat saying, "I told you to stop messing around with that lover of yours baroness. You have no one to blame for the situation that you are in but yourself. I will not help you."

The baroness was now shocked and dismayed. She had no one else to turn to, and did not want to be severely punished for disobeying the baron. Not knowing what else to do, the baroness went back to the drawbridge. The madman looked as attentive and crazy as before, waiving his dagger with glee. He was still shouting warnings to others near the bridge not to try and cross. In desperation, the baroness ran across the drawbridge. The madman let out a wild scream on seeing this, chased the baroness down, and stabbed her to death.

Questions for debate: Put in order from 1-6 who you believe is responsible for the baroness' death(1 being most responsible): the baron, the baroness, the lover, the madman, the boatman, and the friend. Explanations for your choices are welcome.

I'm going with:

1) The Baroness, 2) The Lover, 3) The Friend, 4) The Boatman, 5) The Madman, and 6) The Baron.

1.) Hillary Clinton

oops.



Here's how I see it,
The state of affairs between the behooved baron and two timing-misses was so deplorable that, to avoid being caught by her jealous husband, she was willing to risk certain death. ("There was little doubt that this man's insanity would lead him to follow through on his threat.") In any healthy relationship, she would have either been able to leave the castle in the first place, or, upon the baron's return, would have found it less painful to explain -- or fabricate -- the nature of her foray than to get sliiiiiiiiiiiiiced.

-Therefore, While it would a olympic leap find the baron legally responsible, I find him them both equally responsible in the final outcome: the baron for creating an environment in which his wife feared him more than she feared her own death, and the baroness for her compliance in the relationship, by not addressing the situation or leaving him. (Granted, this does seem to be the 13th century we're talking about.)

-Secondly, I fault the lover and the friend. I don't know why the lover skipped out on the bill, maybe he didn't actually have the money, or maybe he's just that kind of lover, but between him and the friend one or both of them should have known this crazy chica and her husband well enough to know that she might very well cross that bridge. So I credit whichever of the two would best be able to predict her ultimate decision, based on previous behavior and her relationship with her husband.

-The boatman, while a real cold-blooded capitalist tool, does not seem to be in a position where he would have been able to reasonably assume that this girl was going to cross that bridge. If he had known that for certain, I might hold him the most responsible since only he, and not the brainless baroness, had the actual means of saving her life.

-Finally, the madman seems to be more an act of nature than a human being with discernable motives and intentions. He could just have easily been a velociraptor and the game would be the same.

Hmm... cool story. Did you make this up?

I will say

Baroness- I really, really don't pity people who make dumb choices. Plus, she deserves to get punished for cheatin' on the baron.
Madman- Ummm... he's the literal murderer.
Baron- He instilled the fear that basically made her go crazy.
Lover- I really don't know why he doesn't help her if he is indeed her lover. Sounds like a jerk...
Friend- The friend seems to be pretty sane, but being her friend, doesn't help her. If my friend ran up to me saying that the mob was going to kill him unless he gave them five bucks, yeah, I'd give him five bucks even if he wasn't supposed to go out of his house that night.
Boatman- He doesn't have any connection to her, and he doesn't hand out services. Capitalism rules!

This is a very, very good story and puts an analogy on governmental controls. (That's what I'm getting from it.) In terms of seat belts, the government should really not control that. Why is it the government's business if I care to risk my own life? The government should protect people from others, not themselves.

I noticed something else when I was reading the story:
Islam is based on what Allah wants... Tell me, does this man represent an Islamic terrorist?

1. The Baron. He is the one that instilled the fear into the Baroness that made her risk life needlessly to avoid being severely punished, which probably wasn't the first or last time she had been punished by him. In each scenario upon her return it was always about fearing the baron.

2. The Lover. He was not a lover, he just used her. He did not care whether the Baroness ended up alive or dead. I have been half tempted to place the lover in first place, but i'll leave him in second place.

3. The Boatman. he would have known the baron. He would have known where to get the 5 silver, but that would require asking the baron for it. He makes a good balance for being both innocent and guilty. I'm thinking the Boatman is American and suffers from "Not my Problem" syndrome.

4. Friend. A true friend would have offered asylum.

5. The baroness. She knew her chances of crossing the bridge and she took it. Fear makes one do irrational things out of despair.

6. The Madman. Just another mentally ill individual who fell through the cracks of society because some republican slashed a social program that would have kept him off the bridge swinging a knife when he should have been in a treatment home being medicated. Ever wonder how many other people he might have stabbed trying to cross the bridge? Maybe that is somebody elses problem.

1) The Baroness is the most to blame. You could look at the situation and say maybe she did not havea choice but to marry the baron because of family connection or social standing and that she wandered because she was not in love...but this theory is debunked when we see the character of her lover. It is not as if she was in love with another. She wanted to have sex with another. Movie equivalent....Sharon Stone in casino. A shallow, self indulgent and hedonistic hussy.

2) The Madman is number 2 in the blame game. He did actually kill her. Is he crazy? Sure but he killed her. Just a religious madman....maybe Pat Robertson told him to assasinate her Movie Equivalent......Ralph Feinnes in Red Dragon.

3) The Baron is number 3. The story does not conclude him to be a killer in fact it suggests the opposite. He threatens to severly punish her. The context of that phrase makes me assume she will be beaten....or if she is really like Sharon Stone in Casino who will take away her allowance. It does not suggest murder or I think he would have said "leave and I will kill you". He maybe is a bad husband and they are not married for love....but seeing how shallow the Baroness is I bet his only problem is being sub-par in bed and her wandering which is well known (Her friend knew and she was fine with telling the boatman (a complete stranger)her whole life story). She was an embarassement to him. Movie equivalent is William H Macy in Boogie Nights.

4) The Friend. This really sheds light on the demeanor of the Baron. No true friend would send another friend off to be killed. This leads me to believe that the Baron was not a killer or the friend would not have let her go. The friend probably assumed that she would just have to get caught not in the castle and face the punishment from her baron husband....who is not a killer. The friend is sick of her friend cheating on her husband without much reason and is sick of covering for her as I assume the friend has done in the past so she says.....No, get yourself out of this mess this time if your husband takes away your allowance or maybe slaps you this is something you have invited. Movie equivalent......Wesley Snipes in the Moneytrain...who is sick of bailing Woody out of jams but does jump in if it's life or death.....but the friend never suspected life or death here.

5) The Lover. Purely a physical relationship. She overstepped this relationship by asking for money. He probably felt like a prostitute being asked for cab money back to her house. It is not his responsibility she knew what she was getting into when they got involved.

6) The Boatman. Barring the conspiracy theory where him and the madman are working in capitalistic tandem he is completely absolved. I mean a wealthy castle dwelling Baroness does not have the money to cross the bridge? How cheap. Here he is a working stiff and some preppy elitist wants a free ride? No way. He had no way of knowing it was truly life or death. He has a family to feed as well. Movie equivalent the casino man who takes the money in Indecent Proposal after Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson blow their life savings on roulette. Just a random working man doing his job.

I would like to distinguish here between responsibility and blame. There is no doubt that the madman is responsible for the death of the Baroness, but (assuming he is genuinely insane, and out of contact with reality), he is in no way capable of being blamed, any more than a bolt of lightning would be. This is another problem with word meanings, and I can see that someone might use the words "blame" and "responsibility" in a way exactly opposite to the way I use them.

Let me try to avoid this problem by asking this instead:

Who do I think acted in an unethical fashion, leading to this tragedy?

Before I can answer this question fully, I would need some more information.

Did the Baron arrange to have the homicidal madman at the bridge? I assume not, and that his threats of "severe punishment" had nothing to do with this.

Why is the lover unable to help? For lack of more information, I will have to assume that he could have done something even if he did not have the money.

Without rankings, I divide the players in this little fable into two groups.

Those Who Did Not Act In An Unethical Fashion In This Situation

The madman. Those who are genuinely insane cannot be said to act unethically if they are truly unable to understand what they are doing.

The Baron. He seems like an unpleasant fellow, but (unless he arranged it) he did nothing to aid the madman, nor did he have any opportunity to oppose him.

The Baroness. Adultery isn't very nice, but she was in no way to blame for what happened. Her actions may have been foolish, but that is not at all the same as unethical.

Those Who Acted In An Unethical Fashion In This Situation

The lover, and friend, and the boatman. All could have prevented a death at a minor cost to themselves.

An interesting little story that helps highlight how differently each person assesses responsibility and blame in human affairs. I suspect that if the thread continues there will be many, many different answers to the basic question. My take:

Question for debate: Put in order from 1-6 who you believe is responsible for the baroness' death(1 being most responsible): the baron, the baroness, the lover, the madman, the boatman, and the friend. Explanations for your choices are welcome.

The question asks that I put in order from 1-6 who I believe is responsible for the death of the Baroness. However, I decided that I found all but one of the characters have no real responsibility, and therefore can't be ranked. My rationale:

The Boatman was an ungracious stickler for his five pieces of silver, but he only knew that the Baroness would be punished by her husband if she wasn't back at the castle, and that the Baroness had chosen not to risk trying to get by the madman (hence why she was asking for passage across the moat). I can't conclude that he is somehow therefore responsible for her death, when most reasonable people would think that the Baroness would either 1) face up to her husband, or 2) borrow five pieces of silver, rather than get herself killed.

With the Friend, we have a similiar situation in that the Friend probably figured the Baroness would now be caught by her husband, and would have to face him in her infidelity. If the Friend had known that the Baroness would face the Madman and get herself killed, would the Friend not have given her a loan? We don't know from the fact pattern, but that's my point - we don't know, so I can't say I find the Friend responsible for the death of the Baroness either. We can certainly say, however, that the Friend wasn't much of a Friend in the Baroness' time of need.

Similiarly, with the Lover, we also can't tell much from the fact pattern other than that he was sympathetic and told her he could not help her. Maybe he didn't have five pieces of silver to lend, nor did he think it wise for either of them to risk death messing with the Madman on the bridge. Whatever the case, I can't conclude that he decided to turn her down thinking she would get herself killed. All we know is that he "couldn't help her," and the story gives little else to work with.

The Baron comes across as a better candidate for blame and responsibility, in that he held an abusive relationship with his wife. What kind of person tells his spouse that if she leaves the house, she will be "severely punished?" If he suspected adultery, he should have dealt with that in the appropriate fashion. His behavior instilled great fear and arguably influenced his wife to choose very poorly on her fateful day. Still, I can not find the Baron ultimately responsible for the Baroness' decision to risk death at the hands of the Madman. From where I sit, she got herself killed; had the Baron had known what was going to occur, would he have allowed it to happen? I doubt it. Although the Baron is a dislikable character, I can not find him responsible for her death anymore than the Boatman, the Friend, or the Lover.

Nearing the end, we have the Madman, who obviously struck the fatal blow and killed the Baroness with his knife. He is responsible in the physical sense, but we are lead to believe that he was truly mad, out of his mind, and believed he was directed by God to kill anyone who crossed the bridge. When it comes down to it, I can't really find him responsible (in the legal or moral sense of the word) for killing the Baroness either; as another poster put it, he is more like a random act of nature.

That at last only leaves the Baroness, who I think is the only one with any real responsibility in the cause of her own death. She knew the Madman was seriously ill and dangerous, and there was "little doubt he would carry out" his insane and divinely inspired threat. Her smartest course of action would have been to face her abusive husband, but under great stress and duress she chose a course of action that was obviously going to get her killed.

I did not make this up. I'm glad that you and others like it though. This was actually an exercise run in a class given by the US Marine Corp. You are receiving this 3rd degree and I don't have it word for word so it may be skewed a bit. There are no wrong answers obviously and I'm guessing that the purpose is to examine how different people can view the same set of facts. I'll put what the Marines said the characters stood for later in the week. I want to let others answer first. I love reading reactions of my pals.


I personally think that you are reading into this too much LoraX. Maybe the baron didn't want her to leave the castle because he heard rumors of the madman? Who hasn't tried to scare someone we care about into avoiding a potentially fatal situation? The point is, we don't know. The more I think about this, the more I think that the baron might be #3 behind the baroness and lover.

I would blame God. S/He instructed the madman to kill anyone who crossed the bridge, after all. Beyond that, I don't think there's enough information to go on, so my order involves a bit of speculation:

1-2. The baron and the baroness. Clearly, this was not a very good marriage and, because of that, the baroness was killed. Any husband who is capable of telling his wife not to leave the house on pain of severe punishment is not past installing a madman at his drawbridge. Regardless, if it hadn't been for his threat, the baroness could easily have waited at the drawbridge until her husband returned and either leveled with him or come up with some glib pretext for having left the castle.

On the other hand, the baroness decided to leave against her husband's instructions (however unfair they may have been) and, ultimately, decided to risk crossing the bridge. We should expect her to take responsibility for both actions, whatever the cost.

3-5. The boatman, the lover, and the friend. All three were equally callous. Any one of them could have saved the baroness' life and none of them did. There's not really enough to go on to rank the lover and friend, though neither seems to live up to their name. It's possible, I suppose, that the baroness had got into similar scrapes before - or that she had previously cried wolf - which might have affected their decisions. Or maybe she just wasn't a very convincing storyteller. On the face of it, I guess the lover is marginally more responsible - were it not for him, the baroness wouldn't have left the castle in the first place.

I would probably place the boatman a bit ahead of the other two, if pressed. Of the three he had the least to lose. It can't have been that strenuous or time-consuming to have taken a boat across a moat - and five pieces of silver strikes me as being a bit extortionate. Sure, he would have been out the money, but it's not like he made anything by refusing the woman passage. I have no idea why the daft baroness didn't offer to pay him once she reached the castle, though - that might have made a bit of a difference to our little capitalist.

6. The madman. However mad, he was as good as his word. He's the only character in the story that behaved honorably.

Anyway, if this woman was in such a bad marriage that she tolerated such threats, resorted to taking a lover without telling her husband, couldn't convince a friend or a lover to help her out in a time of desperate need, didn't think to offer the boatman payment after the trip, and risked crossing the bridge despite believing the madman's warning, all I can say is, "Good riddance!" Freakin' aristocrats.

I personally think that you are not paying enough attention to power structures. Who is responsible for severe punishment? Take for instance what bingice said:
This creates irony because both the baron and baroness are the government. The Baron rules over his wife by creating fear using threats and punishment. The baroness feared being punishmed more from her husband than certain death on the bridge. The Boatman, the lover, the friend, and yes possible even the madman (assuming he was that in tune with reality) knew she was the baroness. Ever think about their fears of the baron? Why should they risk their own lives with the government?

We don't know that the boatman or madman knew who she was. Isn't it possible that she would hide her identity for fear that these people would send word to the baron? We also do not know the full reasons for the friend and lover refusing aid. They could just be mean for all we know.

Sure the baron has the power to punish her. All I'm saying is that we cannot be sure of his reasons for making the threat. Plus, he certainly didn't know that the threat could somehow lead to her death. The fact that baron knew nothing of the madman, or if he did he tried to scare his wife into staying in the safety of the castle, is one of the main reasons that I have a hard time putting too much responsibility on him for her death. The other players knew of the death possibility at least, though they had no way of knowing for sure that the baroness would test that path.

I would list responsibility as..

Madman since he is the one who murdered her.

Baron because he is doing a poor job keeping dagger swinging madmen away from his bridge.

Friend and lover...because they chose to not help someone they had a personal relationship with.

Boatman because he refused charity to someone who was in need.

And lastly the baroness as she is the victim.

Wow, this is a fun topic.

I'd place the Baroness at the highest level of responsibility. In addition to what others have already mentioned...She knew that there was a madman on the bridge, who told her absolutely that he was going to kill her, yet she took no steps to defend herself and returned to him unarmed.

I'd place the lover second, because he was obviously a cad for chasing a married woman around and then abandoning her and doing nothing to help at the moment of truth.

The madman third. He was insane but did commit the crime afterall.

Next the friend, who did hold some obligation but chose to do nothing...probably hoping that the Baroness would show some personal initiative for once.

The Baron. I don't know why he chose his phraseology. Perhaps he knew about her relationship, or perhaps he knew of a madman running about outside. Either way he should have explained himself better but he holds much less responsibility than the other four, considering that if she had done what he asked, she would have been safe.

Last the boatman. If he isn't paid, he can't feed his family and how the hell is he supposed to ascertain who is telling him the truth and who is making up some story to get a free ride?

Ok, granted. Maybe they don't know what the baroness looks like. Perhaps she did hide her identity. There are plenty of people who don't know who their local representatives look like or their spouses. But it doesn't resolve what I said about her fear. She feared her husband's punishment more than certain death on the bridge. That means the Baroness saw the Baron as a bigger threat than the madman. But let's say there was no madman. Perhaps the bridge could have been hanging on it's last thread because the Baron had not contracted a maintance crew to repaire it. Or maybe a Troll lived underneath it. Regardless, the bridge was a dangerous circumstance and the madman was just fulfilling his function to the equation.



What are his reasons to punish her? Because she disobed his authority? Why else would he feel the need to be threatening? Is it because she is woman and he is a man and she must operate in the confinments of his dominion? I asked the question before, who is responsible for her punishment, assuming that she lived and the Baron found out? The Baron or the Baroness? This is an important factor because it was a condition laid out by the Baron that eventually resulted in the death of the Baroness. There were three immediate possible outcomes to this story. 1. The baroness attempts to cross the bridge and dies which is what happened. 2. She finds an alternative route to the castle but is late and has to confront the punishment of the Baron. 3. She arrives to the castle before the Baron does and he never finds out but being that time was running short this conclusion was least likely. If we are to assume that the Baron has the authority, if not obligation, to control and punish his wife then how should that determine our judgement of the Baronesse's decision to cross the bridge if we agree that the Baron has the right to--imaginatively--beat her. Which is better for the Baroness? To be stabbed to death by a madman or be punished by her husband? She took her chances.

(1) The company which manufactured the dagger, for not labeling it with a warning like "If you stab someone with this really hard, they will probably be badly hurt and possibly even die."

(2) The general merchandise seller who sold the dagger to the madman, for not requiring a three-day waiting period for Madmen Seeking To Purchase Daggers.

(3) The transit company which employed the boatman, for neglecting to offer Bereavement Complimentaries for the baroness who was obviously quite bereaved at the prospect of her own death -- by madman or baron.

(4) The persons responsible for the religious education of the friend, who should have known that she was responsible for assisting the baroness in time of distress.

(5) The lover's wife, because if not for her, the lover could just steal the baroness from the baron and be done with it, and nobody would be dragging their butts across some stupid moat to play licky-face in the first place.

(6) The baron, for not being one of those caveman husbands who keeps his wife barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, and scared to leave home lest she run into madmen with daggers.

P.S.  I wonder if the baroness ever heard the song about Matty Groves?  LOL

I am actually pretty sure she did not know the boatman and the boatman did not know her. It says she spotted "a boatman" not the boatman. She ran to him and had to explain her story about the lover and the madman (which indicates how careless she was about cheating, spilling the beans to a stranger). The boatman made zero indication that he knew who she was and given the descriptive time period it is not as if her picture was plastered everywhere. I mean alot of boatman probably did not know what the royal family looked like let alone a run of the mill baroness.

This was a woman used to using the bridge. I have no idea why the boatman would know who she was at all.

I noted this earlier but I suspected that the madman and the boatman were working a scheme here. The madman blocks the free bridge and the boatman gets paid and they split it.

I mean I have heard of many delusional things but a bridge being the nexus of the universe? Most crazy people do not sit in one place for that long. I think it may have been a scheme and that when she tried to cross he panicked and stabbed her.

That is just a conspiracy theory though.

After much contemplation, here's my final take on the story.

6) Madman - The madman is either the most responsible because he was the person you actually killed the baroness, or he is the least responsible because he is insane and warned her not to cross the bridge. I'm going with the latter.

5) Boatman - Does not know the baroness personally and is just trying to earn a living. I'm staying away from the madman/boatman conspiracy theory or any other since we have no proof on that.

4) Baron - May be a jerk, but we have no indication that he knew of any danger of death coming from his threat.

3) Friend - Knew of all of the possibilities but would not help out of spite.

2) Lover - Knew of all of the possibilities, would not help, plus he is part of the reason the baroness is outside the castle in the first place.

1) Baroness - Knew of the risk of being punished when leaving the castle. Was warned that the madman would kill her, but she ran anyway.

So what do they all stand for? Again, you are getting this 3rd person, but here does.

Baron = the majority. The majority sets the rules and situations that we must deal it generally.

Baroness = the minority.

Lover = enticements. Be it drugs, money, whatever - the lover represents the things that temp us, often to our detriment.

Madman = the police. The police don't care why we do things. If you break their rules, you pay their price.

Boatman = institutions. Pretty obvious here. $$ gets you X. No $$ does not.

Friend = partisans. Strong liberals and conservatives will basically say if you do not follow their behaviors/beliefs, to heck with you.

So who do the members of AD hold responsible? The tally of 11 members left us with this order:

1) Baroness, 2) Baron, 3) Lover, 4) Friend, 5) Madman, 6) Boatman

5 Females, and 6 Males participated(considering the makeup of this forum, the women were well represented). The Females average rank actually held the Baroness LEAST responsible for her death. The Lover was most responsible, followed closely by the Baron. I wonder if the answers would have changed any had I changed the majority to the Queen of England threatening severe punishment on her husband?? The men's average rank was the exact same as the overall rank.

5 Liberals, 2 Conservatives, and 4 'others' participated.

Liberals generally found The Baron and Lover most responsible, and the Madman least. Conservatives found the Baroness and Madman most responsible, with the Baron 4th behind the Lover. Other's ranking was the exact same as the overall ranking.

I was wondering when we were going to be given the key to this little allegory.

When I first read this, I assumed that the point under debate was this:

To what extent are our circumstances the result of our own actions?

The stereotype of the conservative would be to place nearly all responsibility on the individual; the stereotype of the liberal would be to place nearly all responsibility on society. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between.