Prince Wilhelm is passionately in love with Celestine, but she does not love him. One day...

Prince Wilhelm is passionately in love with Celestine, but she does not love him. One day, Wilhelm comes to the King and asks for Celestine's hand in marriage. Celestine begs the king not to marry her to Wilhelm, but the king ignores her pleas. Royal protocol means he must say yes to the match. They are married and Wilhelm takes Celestine back with him to his kingdom. That night, he attempts to consummate the marriage, but the distraught Celestine flees. She runs from the safety of the castle and across a field, ignoring the sign which warns of danger. In that field is a bull, who, seeing the girl, charges her. She falls under his hooves and is killed instantly.

user, I would like you to arrange these figures in order of who is most responsible for Celestine's death. On the left, place the one you consider MOST guilty, and on the right, place the one you consider LEAST guilty.

In case you can't tell, the king is the figure of the man sitting, while the man standing is Prince Wilhelm.

Bull > Woman > Prince > King

>he blames the bull most

Do you blame guns for murders, too?

Bulls are stupid animals that follow their instincts. They don't know or understand their actions or the implications.

woman > bull > prince > king

Princess > Bull > Prince > King

The king did literally nothing wrong, he just followed the laws of the land and had nothing to do with the princess' death.

The prince is an asshole for forcing the princess to marry him against her will and depending on your perspective he's a rapist as well, but like the king he was perfectly within his right according to the laws of the land and had no hand in her death. At worst, you can say that his actions indirectly caused the princess to seek her own death.

The bull is the one who actually killed the princess and thus directly responsible for her death, but it's just a dumb animal that doesn't understand the meaning of its actions. It acted on instinct and there was a clear warning that he was dangerous.

The princess, while arguably not morally wrong for fleeing an awful situation, went against the law of the land by resisting the marriage, ignored the sign that warned her, and willingly went into the field where she knew her life would be in danger. Since the bull cannot be held responsible, she's the only one who can be blamed for her own death.

>The king did literally nothing wrong, he just followed the laws of the land and had nothing to do with the princess' death.

Nigga he's the King, he MAKES the laws of the land. If he wants to say no he just fucking says no.

A king can't just make shit up as he pleases. Breaking protocol for personal reasons, especially when there's a foreign prince involved, is a good way to start an international conflict.

Not the user you replied to, but... While I agree that the king made the right choice to marry off his daughter, that doesn't mean he's not guilty of her death. Those things arent mutually exclusive. Being a king means making hard decisions.

Absolute power only exists so long as other people allow you to have it

The rest of the nobility would be up in arms if their King just started making up whatever he wanted and insisting it was law now

Blaming others for suicide always seems stupid.

Bull>Celestine>King>Wilhelm

Well, that's why he's on the guilt scale. It just women being women.

The sequence of events that led to her death is too far removed from him to make him guilty in any possible way. You might argue that it was morally wrong of him to marry her off, just as it was morally wrong for the prince to force the marriage in the first place, but that doesn't make him responsible for her death.

They're ALL Guilty!

King > Prince > Bull > Woman


Celestine did nothing wrong by resisting a marriage she didn't want. She fucked up a little by ignoring the sign, but presumably she was desperate and didn't think she had any other options.

The bull was the one who actually killed her, but it was just being a bull.

The prince knew that Celestine didn't love him but forced the marriage anyway, then tried to rape her, which caused her to want to flee so badly that she was willing to endanger her own life.

The king, on the other hand, *enabled* the prince's behavior by making it legal for him to do the horrible shit he did that drove Celestine to get herself killed. Had he listened to Celestine and denied the marriage none of this shit would have happened.

Which is, of course, the opposite of , and that's kind of the idea behind this in the first place, I'd say- in terms of the law of the land, their ordering is correct. In terms of who's *morally* wrong/right, this ordering is correct.

King,Dick,Bull,Chick

is it bad that I really enjoyed shattered memories and actually hoped there would be a sequel similar in prospect but with a retell of SH 2

Celestine
Wilhelm
Bull
King

If you answer anything else, you have shit taste.

Woman > Prince > King > Bull
This is objectively right.

t. expert

I think the most thought provoking part of this piece isn't the order in general or how you interpret the marriage situation.

The most telling thing about you in the puzzle is where you put the bull relative to the rest of the 'intelligent' human who have a 'choice'.

Disregard everything else.

>is it bad that I enjoy stuff
Listen to yourself user. I wouldn't mind, but I'd actually prefer a retelling of 3 since I don't consider it a very good game.

>tried to rape her
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.

So it's about the way we see humans? Either as nothing more then animals, or "special"?

I coloured my house yellow and blue

What the fuck?
First, where were the castle guards? They have a job of watching castle fucking gates.
Second, why were there a dangerous animal in castle's walking distance? The peasant who owned it or looked after it better have some explanation.
We're having a case of criminal negligence here, not a fucking sappy romance.

Bull is most guilty of the murder, intelligence and choice mean little.

Just because you can't hold a bull on trial doesn't make him not guilty of killing.

This is correct

>then tried to rape her,
They are married therefore he is free to have sex whenever he wants.

OP here

I hope you like my thread. I woke up much earlier than usual and thought maybe early morning Sup Forums was better than the usual noon to 2-5am Sup Forums I'm used to.

A few key things
A. Whether you think choice really exists, plays into free will
B. Whether you think animals can be guilty of their actions, if you say no you are essentially drawing a vague line that says sometimes humans might not be responsible for their actions
C. Value of human life versus animal life and all that

The key thing is that your interpretation of the other three's guilt is almost certainly based on your cultural background, norms, and laws, none of that really applies to the bull. The rest of the question does a good job of tricking you into taking the bull question lightly, and thus convincing you to answer more honestly.

Tell the truth, when considering the answer, wherever you put the bull took no time at all to decide, right?

>if you say no you are essentially drawing a vague line that says sometimes humans might not be responsible for their actions
How? Animals don't adhere to our laws.

what is marital rape, idiot.

Its better than just making a "2 > 1 > 3" thread like I was planning to.

I mean, that's also all about "law of the land vs. what's morally right." Yeah, the law of the land probably says that's not rape, but morally, she didn't want to get married in the first place and thus presumably doesn't want to have sex with him either, thus him fucking her anyway would be rape.

>no time at all to decide
No, but if I though more about it I might have placed either at the back or did not place him at all, though I suppose you must.

Modern meme
>law of the land probably says that's not rape
Also, this.

>murder
Self-defence in his own territory.

Something that shouldn't exist.

I really, really liked SM. Best ending in a SH game if you ask me

>I love my daddy!

Princess>King>Prince>Bull

Bull is least guilty. Like everyone else said in this thread. It isnt human, and if anything, the Bull might have felt like it was defending itself. A strange creature ran into its home in the middle of the night.

The princess is most guilty because she solely ran into the dangerous area. If im driving at night and i ignore a One Way sign. No matter what the fuck im driving from, i will be responsible.

The King and the Prince can be interchanged but I say the King is more guilty because, without knowing more detail about the story, he just threw away his daughter, without really knowing if the prince was trustworthy. If we were to assume the Prince was a stereotypical bad guy, then giving the princess up willingly is your own fault. Same reason a parent can be liable for leaving their child with a known rapist.

to bad the controls were complete shit.

you mean the act or the concept?

The concept

That's a pretty good one.

So you'd be okay with a dude forcing you to marry him and then raping you every single night?

Hurr durr you can't rape your own wife. So by that standard you should be allowed to fuck your son/daughter right? They belong to you. That wouldn't be rape.

>raping
Here's that word again....

>So by that standard you should be allowed to fuck your son/daughter right?
What the fuck am I reading

No, that's incest.

Nice false equivalence

King > Princess > Prince > Bull

Bull is least guilty for reasons already listed in thread.

The King is the most guilty because he creates the laws of the land and chooses to reap the benefits of his daughter's marriage instead of giving his offspring happiness

The Prince was just doing what all dudes were taught to do back then, while that doesn't excuse him it does give him slightly less agency in his actions.

The Princess while actively choosing to ignore the sign got killed. But it is my belief that when she was running away she was more focused on getting out of that rapey relationship and was willing to take any chance she could. She understood there was a risk but the situation she was in before which was horrible enough clearly that she'd be willing to take the risk.

Woman>Prince>King>Bull

Let's start again, you'd be okay with some dude forcing you to marry him and then fucking you in the ass every night?

>Princess Celestine test contains more plot, than whole SH3
How they managed to do this?

>he creates the laws
We don't know that, usually it was not the case, it was job either for parliament, or it was oral tradition.

Fucking whore. This is why we need to destroy feminism, or else wives will refuse the man what is his by right

Let me give you a tip newfag so you don't embarass yourself.

When you read posts like that, you fucking ignore them you retard. 95% of the time the user is baiting you into an argument where you're trying to win and they're just saying whatever is necessary to piss you off more.

>hurr I'm not mad!

Yes, you are. You're giving him what he wants and if you keep going you're just going to keep getting madder and he's going to keep getting what he wants.

Shitposting only exists because of newfags enabling them.

She would learn to like it eventually

Homosexuality should be illegal, so no. If I was a woman, it depends on reasons why marriage is happening, I think I could make a sacrifice, if needed.

It's implied cause you know he's a King; and those titles are usually reserved for that of Monarchy.You know, one ruler, one king. Why wouldn't he make the laws?

If sharia law becomes global and some sandnigger forces you to marry him and fuck you, would you be okay with it?

The Prince and the King at fault. The King should not be controlling of women and the prince should have prepared the bull better so as not to have such accidents. The woman and the bull did nothing wrong are victims as such.

Prince > Woman > King > Bull

A bull can't be guilty of anything because he is a stupid fucking animal

The king is apparently bound by law to arrange the marriage so he can't do shit there

The woman is an idiot for ignoring the danger sign

Prince is a Sup Forums tier autist who can't deal with rejection

From most guilty.
Celestine for being a spoiled brat.
Wilhelm for having the tact of drunken moron.
The King for failing to raise his daughter properly.
The bull for... existing I guess.

Just a question; was the bull black?

>the prince should have prepared the bull better
Oh you...

>bound by law
>can make the laws

????
Did everyone forget fucking history for a second.

Apparently we did because it's never implied it's an absolute monarchy

I'm late but, Prince > King > Bull > Cel.
Prince tried to rape, King allowed it knowing what would happen, Bull's a stupid angry animal, Cel should've payed attention but didn't really do anything wrong.
Everyone that disagrees is basically retarded.

woman > prince > king > bull

prince>king>woman>bull

Yes, the weak must submit to the strong. However since I am strong, your scenario will not happen to me

It depends, as I said, in Polish Lithuanian commonwealth king did not make laws, though they were written in his name, he did not have power to do that, neither I think English kings could could, absolutist monarch could though, to a degree, and in OP's text it is implied that he would break protocol if he refuses to allow marriage which makes me think that he share part of his power with some sort of parliament.
Woman is dumb anyway, beaus these people married not for love.

>Sharia law
>gay marriage

You're retarded. Only women will be forced to marry men, as it should be.

They're weaker, less intelligent, less rational and don't get along with other women. Including them in the working force is a ridiculous way to structure your society.

They make great housewives, since simple tasks like cooking, cleaning and child rearing are well within their abilities and play to their strengths excellently. Teaching elementary school, working as nurses and other tasks like that work as well, but they should stay at home once they marry and have children.

A good stay at home mother with a hard working father is the absolute best way for a kid to have a good shot at life.

But hey, stay cucked by the inferior half of the species who are completely incapable of running the world.

You do realize that rape constitutes non-consensual sex right with penetration right? Regardless of status of marriage right?

Sandniggers are against homosexuality, so I'm good, also, it's not the same.

Those who blame the girl are mostly woman hating bitter neckbeard.

Those who blame the king/prince are beta white Knights who never wins the girl

>Yes, the weak must submit to the strong. However since I am strong, your scenario will not happen to me
Now I know you're memeing, good show.

Edgy.

According to you and your morals.

But this takes place in fantasy middle ages.

That's just for modern laws.

How do you even justify the woman ?
You are a princess, your only value is to be married off for forging alliances and preserving bloodlines, be fucking glad you got married to someone who actually loves you and isn't 20 years older.

I think blaming the King is fine. He failed to protect his daughter from the shittiness of the world. He's a bad dad and a failure as a man.

He protected his kingdom, though.

He probably got a good alliance with that prince, and or averted political disaster, he's bad dad that though, should have though his daughter of duty and humility.

is that sam hyde ?

Plus if she was the first princess and he was the first prince their heir would've inherited and united both realms.

I'd go to war if it is to protect my family and lineage.
I find it more beta to submit to other kingdom and give out your own daughter because of the possibility of conflict.
I am confident that my kingdom will not lose to a petty man who can't deal with rejection.

This, y'all user's need some honor and self respect.

Yes, Sam Hyde is playing everyone like a fiddle and is trolling to a maximum level.

Actually that would depend on inheritance laws. According to most medieval inheritance laws if the king has a son then he'd be the one to inherit the lands even if he isn't the firstborn.

Daughter are not going to save your lineage, directly at least, anyway, might as well look for a younger wife to pump out male heir.

laws dont make something right user.

the number of people blaming celestine and essentially defending marital rape itt disgust me desu

It is so honorable to force your kingdom into a bloody war for the sake of your daughter wanting to find TRUE LOVE.

>even if he isn't the firstborn.
This, only some of the modern "royals" allow equal gender inheritance laws. Spain stayed uncucked.

She is a princess, her only purpose is to secure alliances and to shit out babies.

>IMPLYING ABSOLUTE POWER CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE POLICE, BANKERS AND MILITARY.
>IMPLYING THE KING WOULDN'T BE IMMEDIATELY DEPOSED IF HE STARTED FUCKING ABOUT WITH THE LAWS ON A WHIM

Nowher does it say that she's my only daughter, I'd say I'll be okay.

Prince William Frederick Francis Joseph Christian Olaf did nothing wrong.

What is Henry the VIII Alex.