This idea can be expanded, but right now I think of it is an experience on how your choices shape the future of at least three different people, and the rest of civilization.
You are a police officer who can see into the future, and because of that you are elected to be the single officer in duty that day, in a sick experiment, to choose the fate of three people:
- The Innocent Man: a man who’ll be killed by a foreign assassin;
- The Child: a child who’s going to be tortured and killed by an unknow person;
- The Woman: a woman who’s going to jump off a bridge.
The player must choose what to do, with three possible actions for each case:
- Talk to the perpetrator, to look for alternatives without resorting to violence;
- Kill the perpetrator, to avoid the crime entirely, and avoid any reincidence;
- Arrest the perpetrator, after he do his deed. After all, you can’t arrest someone for something he’s yet to do.
And, of course, each action creates a different future:
- If you choose at least two times talk to the involved people, instead of killing or arresting them, you are sending a message: someone will be there to help you see reason, to avoid evil. Of course, if the perpetrator chooses to continue the crime, he’ll be shot. There may not be any victims anymore because you choose to fix what’s wrong. The problem is that until they find another person capable of seeing the future, they’ll keep you under constant vigilance.
- If you choose at least two times to kill the perpetrator, instead of helping or arresting them, the message is different: thinking of a crime – that’s important, after all you didn’t yet did it – is enough to be punished for it. There won’t be any more crimes, but people are ruled through an iron fist. There’s peace, but fear. As you is the only one who can say who’s going to be a perpetrator or a victim, you can rule, to “be sure that peace will prevail.”
- If you choose to arrest the perpetrator at least two times, instead of helping or killing them, you are send another message: seeing the future, and punishing people can not coexist, after all, you can’t just punish someone because you, and only you, saw that they are going to commit a crime. Until society itself desires to change it, based on the will of the people, the law will keep the same, and you’ll be retired from the police: no one can guarantee that you won’t use your power, and if you are to use it, you should not be associated with the Law.
I still need to work around few points, like making sure that the different ends give the right message, that there isn’t any “wrong choice” in it, that every single one of these futures reflect a real possibility, with advantages and disadvantages for the people, and changing a little bit the futures based on specific crimes. like the jurisdition for crimes involving minors, suicide…