Who is most
responsible for the death of the
baroness?
Sophisticated
solvers will observe that...
There are six possible
solutions.
...depending
on the mental framing by
each solver. Skip to my
solution.
Background of the Puzzle
The narrative in the puzzle dates
back to the middle of the 20th
century and can be found today in various
forms and titles on the Internet.
Whereas many of them share the title
Drawbridge Dilemma (singular),
Drawbridge Dilemmas (plural)
might give recognition to the prefix
di-
(two) in the word dilemma. Here's why...
Although
only one character
in
the story
is called for in the
solution, sophisticated solvers will probably
organize their
efforts by comparing
one-by-one the
responsibility
of each character
with
all five of the others in
any order.
That constitutes
six sets of
dilemmas
(plural).
The most
elaborate version
of the challenge may be The
Drawbridge
Exercise,
which was
published in 1978 by
Judith H.
Katz. It
calls
for rank-orderlisting
of all six
characters.
Assuming that
each character
in the story
is culpable
enough to
qualify as a
reasonable
candidate
for the most
responsible,
then solvers
of
Factorial Factoids
can
easily show that
there are 720
possible solutions in
that form.
Time-Line of Events
Observations by the
Author
As he was
departing for a visit to his outlying
districts, the baron warned his young
wife: “Do not leave the castle or else I
shall punish you severely when I return
at dawn!”
Solvers
learn here only that the baroness is
young. Most
people make the assumptionthat
she is attractive and pleasant. At
this point in the story, her infidelity has
not yet been disclosed, only that her
husband is
a tyrant..
The
baron is obviously cruel in the
extreme. Some solvers suspect that
his jealousy is a 'projection' of his own
guilt as a philanderer in
those 'outlying districts'.
The castle was
situated on an island in a fast-flowing
river. A drawbridge linked the island to
the mainland at the narrowest point in
the river.
By and by, the
baroness became bored.Despite
her husband's warning, she decided to
visit her paramour, who lived in the
countryside nearby. The baroness
ordered the drawbridge to be lowered and
walked across.
The
duration of time is quite ambiguous here.
Solvers who become most unsympathetic to
the baroness are reinforced in their
assessment by the notion of ‘boredom’ not
‘loneliness’.
Some
solvers speculate that
her unfaithfulness has been well
established -- most likely
in retaliation for
the baron's behavior.
After pleasant
hours with her paramour, the baroness
returned to the drawbridge, only to find
it blocked by a madman.He
wildly brandished a dagger. “Do not
attempt to cross the drawbridge,” he
shrieked, “for I must kill you!”
The
interval measured in ‘hours’ is generally
assumed to be long enough to reach
nightfall, with dawn not far off.
Solvers
are introduced here to the most dreadful
character in the story – a crazy person
with a weapon, who is fixated in some
strange way on guarding the drawbridge.
Fearing for her
life, the baroness rushed back to her
paramour and asked him for help. He
shook his head and frowned. “Our
relationship is strictly romantic,” he
said. “I am not obliged to protect you.”
This lover-man
is a cowardly cad; that’s obvious.
At least one version of the story replaces
‘frowned’ with ‘grinned’, which elevates
the contemptibiliy of the paramour but not
his responsibility. Solvers may need to
remind themselves that the challenge is to
assign blame not shame.
The baroness
then sought out a boatman on the river
and, after describing her plight to him,
she asked to be taken across in his
boat.“I will do that – but only if you
pay me a fee of five drachmas.”
The
boatman invites interesting
suppositions: Suppose that a dockside sign
reads, "River-Crossing: Two Drachmas."
That means his inflated fee would
financially exploit the baroness in
distress.A posted fee of ‘Ten Drachmas,"
implies that the 50% discount in his offer
was intended to purloin some intimate
‘favor’ from the baroness.
His
use of the word ‘cannot’ might be taken to
mean that the boatman was not the owner of
the boat but an employee of, say, the
baron.
“But I have no
money with me!” the baroness protested.
The boatman
shrugged.“Too bad for you.I
cannot give free rides.”
Her fear
growing, the baroness ran to the home of
a friend and, after tearfully explaining
her situation, she begged for a loan of
five drachmas to pay the boatman his
fee.
Here
again, solvers have found opportunities
for discovering assumptions and for
creative suppositions.
In
particular, the friend is generally
assumed to be a woman, even possibly a defeated
rival for the baron’s matrimonial
attentions.Then too, one version of the
narrative published on the Internet casts
the mother of the baroness in place
of 'friend'.
“If you had not
disobeyed your husband, you would not be
in such trouble,” said the friend. “I
will not lend you any money.”
With dawn
approaching and her last resource
exhausted, the baroness rushed back to
the drawbridge in desperation and was
slain by the madman.
Most
solvers make a legalistic argument against
assigning responsibility to the madman
based on his diminished mental
capacity. Others
speculate that a deranged castle guard was
selected by the baron for his ‘wet-work’.
Applications for the Puzzle
Excuse
me for dropping into the first person
singular here, but my favorite
applications for Drawbridge Dilemmas
were...
[a] in
my heuristics class at UCLA during the '60s, with an emphasis on Discovering
Assumptions and....
[b] in a
leadership development seminar
during the '70s, with an emphasis on The
Rational Process.
Typically,
I would provide copies
of the story to 'break-out'
groups, each comprising
a handful of
participants. The
requirement was
elementary...
Return
with
a unanimous team
solution reached
by
consensus.
Team
leaders were called upon
to present reports,
prompted
by such
questions as...
What procedures did your group use to develop
the consensus solution?
What personal values influenced the
decision-making process?
What hidden assumptions needed to be made
explicit?
What opinions were brought into consideration?
What conflicts arose in discussions?
How were they resolved?
You
are invited to submit comments --
especially creative suppositions
-- here.
Over
six decades, the baron, with his extreme
possessiveness, has most often been selected by
solvers as the character most responsible for the
murder. However, his cruel warning did not
explicitly threaten a lethal outcome for
disobedience.
In male-dominated exercises long ago, the baroness
was shamefully despised by solvers for her amorous
transgressions. Today, though, few would argue
that she deserved to die as a consequence of
disobedience to her husband.
Three
characters in the story were given opportunities –
if not obligations – to prevent the tragic
outcome. Each confronted a dilemma that
included risk...
Not knowing of any alternative for
crossing the river, the paramour
would need to confront the menace at the
drawbridge in person, with potentially
fatal consequences for himself – and no
assurance of success.
The boatman would be able to
stay away from the drawbridge, but his ‘pro-bono’
participation in the conspiracy would
have a monetary cost.
If genuine, the friend had
only to make a loan of five drachmas to
finance the rescue, and she would surely
expect to be fully repaid in due course.
Solvers
of the Drawbridge Dilemma
have argued that the madman is so mentally
deranged that he had no responsible for his grisly
actions. Still, the monster did not leave the
drawbridge and fiendishly chase the young
baroness. He issued a warning instead.
If, as some solvers suggest, the baron had
enlisted his lethal services, the poor sap had
much to fear for not carrying out orders.
That does elevate the baron in the responsibility
domain, I suppose, but one sees evidence in the
madman of sycophantic zealotry, which shifts some
responsibility away from the baron.
Accordingly, the friend takes the prize,
since she only needed to open her purse and take
out five drachmas to prevent the murder.
