PDA

View Full Version : The Ghost Wolf Riddles



Martin the Warrior
October 31st, 2003, 12:10 PM
Well, here's the special game for Halloween I mentioned. About seven years ago, a writing group I belonged to held a special contest and one of the main aspects of it was: riddles.

There was one series of riddles that stood out especially and they were the Ghost Wolf Riddles written by a friend of mine named Rawley Cooper (who is an excellent writer). These are not your ordinary riddles, however. A firm grip of logic is required to solve them and the obvious answer may not be the right one-- then again, maybe it will be.

However, with these riddles you cannot just guess an answer (as there are usually only two possible answers). The test is that you have to explain the logic you used to arrive at that conclusion. If it's incorrect, so is your answer, even if the answer is right. Confusing? You'll see as we progress.

The first riddle is rather simple, but they will get progressively harder. As each is solved, I'll post the next until we've completed all five.

Please note, however, that these riddles are not to be copied or posted elsewhere, be it on a forum, website, or any other medium. These are here for your amusement on Halloween, that's it. And so, without further ado, here we go.

Ghost Wolf Riddle #1
-by Rawley Cooper

A knight sworn to the service of Lord Albert was crossing a large empty meadow. Lord Albert was currently at peace with all his neighbors so the knight had no reason to be careful.

But following the knight, matching his steps and staying directly behind him out of sight, was a ghost wolf. A creature of [darkness], somewhat transparent but making real footprints. The ghost wolf made no sound at all, and had no smell, and was staying out of the knights line of sight. But the look on it's face spoke of death and killing.

When the knight came to the center of the meadow. He paused at the center of meadow. Maybe by coincidence, maybe some holy guardian or sixth sense was trying to warn him. But he saw nothing amiss, the meadow seemed calm and harmless.

Directly behind him the wolf prepared to attack.

The riddle: What does the knight do next?

Baby Rollo
October 31st, 2003, 01:59 PM
Nothing because the ghost wolf is his shadow

Rillflag27
October 31st, 2003, 02:27 PM
I agree with Rollo...." matching his steps and staying directly behind him out of sight" nothin else but a person's shadow could do that

Martin the Warrior
October 31st, 2003, 03:44 PM
Incorrect. The Ghost Wolves are real, note that they make "real footprints" and have distinguishing characteristics on their faces ("that spoke of death and killing").

Good guess, but incorrect. Keep trying. Remember to look closely at the contents of the riddle-- the answer is right there. As with everything, you only need to look at it from a logical standpoint. :D

Chesk Otter
October 31st, 2003, 11:00 PM
Either the knight keeps walking because he has no reason to be careful and he sees nothing amiss. That's the first guess. My second guess is he looks around to see the wolf because he's suddenly stopped in the field and it said something was trying to warn him and what else would he do once he's suddenly stopped in the middle of a field? I mean, I guess he could stop to pick a flower, or if he has a shovel, dig a hole, but I guess he would look around.

Martin the Warrior
November 1st, 2003, 02:10 PM
Nice guesses, Chesk, but they're incorrect.

Remember, logic is the key. Examine every aspect of the riddle from a logical stand-point. Deal only with the facts, not guesswork.

We'll see if anybody can correctly answer the riddle today. If not, then we'll just end things tomorrow because this is, by far, the simplest of the riddles. No sense in posting the harder ones if this one is too tough. ;)

Nora the Rover
November 1st, 2003, 02:14 PM
The riddle states that the knight was crossing a large empty
meadow, so that means that the ghost wolf probably doesn't exist.

Martin the Warrior
November 1st, 2003, 02:21 PM
Nope, they're real. Again, logic. What the riddle does is give you the facts of the case, which you need to identify on your own, and then asks you to post what logic dictates happens next. There aren't any real hidden meanings. ;)

Cornflower
November 1st, 2003, 03:12 PM
Um, the wolf attacked and killed/injured him? :confused:

Chesk Otter
November 1st, 2003, 04:17 PM
The knight does nothing. :confused:

Madd The Sane
November 1st, 2003, 06:31 PM
What any (in?)sane person whould do; Run!

He would feel something unknown and evil following you. Answer this: What would you do in his position?

No! Wait! he would turn around!
I think

Chesk Otter
November 1st, 2003, 07:44 PM
I already said he would turn around as a guess.

I got it! I got it! (I hope.) He lights a candle! See, the wolf was a creature of "[darkness]", it was dark so that's why it was transparent, was out of sight and the knight (was a knight used as the character specifically as a clue to night?) couldn't see anything.

Martin the Warrior
November 1st, 2003, 07:55 PM
Remember, giving an answer is not enough-- you need to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. What logic is involved?

"Um, the wolf attacked and killed/injured him?"

What brought you to that conclusion?

"The knight does nothing."

What brought you to that conclusion?

"What any (in?)sane person whould do; Run!"

What brought you to that conclusion?

"He lights a candle!"

What brought you to that conclusion?

Keep trying. You're all starting to get close.

Chesk Otter
November 1st, 2003, 08:04 PM
I explained why I thought he was going to light a candle. Why's it wrong? I was convinced it was right. It sounds like it's right. All right, the word darkness has got to be in brackets for a reason. Is the wolf really a wolf or is the wolf actually a metaphor for night or something else?

Slagar the Cruel
November 1st, 2003, 08:05 PM
Hmm. Riddle me this; what manner of creature, object, or element can be transparent, silent, scentless, and out of sight; yet posessing a face, footprints, and the ability to attack?

Quite intriguing stuff, but I'm afraid I shan't be competing. It's a little too difficult to distinguish exactly what we're to take literally and what we aren't. (Your explanation of the rules made it seem as though every part of the conclusion is logical, and yet... how does anything fit the description above? Of course, we are not asked to actually figure out what the ghost wolf is, but without this knowledge how are we to determine the knight's course of action?)

Cornflower
November 1st, 2003, 08:26 PM
Well, I thought if the knight couldn't sense that it was there, then that's what would probably happen :confused:
Maybe when it jumped out the knight looked around and saw it coming?

Chesk Otter
November 1st, 2003, 08:36 PM
I dunno. Er, does the knight take his helmet off so he can see better?

Cale Yin
November 1st, 2003, 09:34 PM
Martin, I think you overestimate my powers of reasoning. :p
I've never gotten a single riddle in my life. I just don't get it. Riddles boggle the living daylights out of my mind.

Maybe the knight prays to Lord Albert to turn on the light switch. :rolleyes:

Rillflag27
November 2nd, 2003, 10:49 AM
I have one question...is it night or day? The most logical answer I can think of is the knight turns around and sees the ghost wolf.

Keyla
November 2nd, 2003, 03:14 PM
A knight sworn to the service of Lord Albert was crossing a large empty meadow. Lord Albert was currently at peace with all his neighbors so the knight had no reason to be careful.

But following the knight, matching his steps and staying directly behind him out of sight, was a ghost wolf. A creature of [darkness], somewhat transparent but making real footprints. The ghost wolf made no sound at all, and had no smell, and was staying out of the knights line of sight. But the look on it's face spoke of death and killing.

When the knight came to the center of the meadow. He paused at the center of meadow. Maybe by coincidence, maybe some holy guardian or sixth sense was trying to warn him. But he saw nothing amiss, the meadow seemed calm and harmless.

Directly behind him the wolf prepared to attack.

The riddle: What does the knight do next?


Well, there are some things here that seem rather odd.

Just as a quick guess: how about the knight prepares to attack?
My logic: the wolf mirrors his movements; if he is preparing to attack then perhaps the knight is too. Tenious I know.

Odd things:
The meadow is empty, bar the knight. Must the wolf not be in the meadow then?
The wolf is transparent, yet his face speaks of death and killing. The author even makes the point of him being out of the line of sight, in spite of the fact that he's invisable, though I suppose he might see his footprints.

I might hazard a guess that he simply carries on across the meadow, considering nothing wrong. But then that's kind of obvious and has been said before.

Chesk Otter
November 2nd, 2003, 06:14 PM
Or as an alternative answer, the knight lifts up the visor on his helmet (if there is one) so he can see better.

Martin the Warrior
November 2nd, 2003, 06:24 PM
Cornflower has, essentially, gotten it.

Ghost Wolf Answer #1
-by Rawley Cooper

The riddle: What does the knight do next?

The answer: Die!

As the story stated, the knight had no reason to believe there was a ghost wolf behind him. No sight (it was hidden behind him), no sound, no smell, etc. We knew it was there, he didn't. So when the wolf attacks, the knight is caught completely by surprise.

To continue the story, a large number of people entered the meadow at the moment that the ghost wolf attacked. They saw the knight being killed and then the wolf disappearing. They told the story everywhere, and that meadow got an evil reputation.

Remember this answer, it is a hint to the riddles that follow. On to Ghost Wolf Riddle # 2.

Good job, Cornflower!

Now, everyone can take a stab at riddle #2 and see how they fare. It's marginally harder than the first (but not by much).

Ghost Wolf Riddle #2
-by Rawley Cooper

Zole, a knight in the service to Lord Bently, was hurrying to deliver an important message. Lord Bently and Lord Albert were at war, a war that had been going on for a year minus a day. He was on the border of Lord Bently's land when a strange gypsy women stopped him.

"The world is a chaotic place. Do not risk your life on the appearance of a pattern, only logic will save you. Trust to logic, not patterns." When she said this she laughed an evil laugh. Then she disappeared. Literally, like a mist dissolving in the morning sun.

Zole was understandably spooked. But his mission was important. So he hurried off.

Zole was even more spooked when he realized where he was. He was about to walk out into a meadow, a meadow with an evil reputation. Exactly one year ago a knight of Lord Albert had been killed in this meadow by a ghost wolf. He was about to go the long way around and avoid the meadow, but he stopped himself. His mission was important, and the ghost wolf was just a story (or so he thought).

As he started to cross the meadow, he noticed another knight cross towards him from the exact opposite end of the meadow. As he approached, he recognized the other knight. It was a knight of Lord Albert, a deadly enemy. He would have to kill this knight or be killed by him.

But he also saw what followed the knight. A ghost wolf. Making no sound, staying directly behind the knight (and out of his line of sight). And looking like it was about to attack.

As he approached the center of the meadow, he stopped, and so did his enemy. If a wolf was following his enemy, what about him? If a wolf was following him, he would have no way of knowing it. But there seemed to be a pattern here, maybe all knights who enter this meadow are followed by ghost wolves. But the mysterious women's warning said to ignore patterns and trust to logic. What did logic say?

Well, a ghost wolf was clearly the worst enemy. So if one was behind him, he should spin around and defend himself. But by doing so, he would open himself up to the enemy knight and the other wolf, so he should only do that if he had to because there was a wolf behind him. Logic made it clear, he must attack the ghost wolf behind him (if it was behind him). But he should attack his enemy if there is no wolf behind him. And the sooner the better, if his opponent attacked first it would give him an advantage.

So it all came down to whether there was a ghost wolf behind him or not.

As he puzzled this out, with a confused look on his face, the knight of Lord Albert also stood and looked confused. And the ghost wolf behind this knight prepared to pounce.

Then it hit him. Logic did provide a solution. And he knew for certain if a ghost wolf was behind him or not.

The riddle: What does Zole do next? (or if you prefer, is there a ghost wolf behind Zole or not?)

Remember to explain your logic-- a simple "Yes" or "No" doesn't cut it.

Chesk Otter
November 2nd, 2003, 07:26 PM
There is a ghost wolf behind Zole. The other knight was looking confused too so that means he is thinking about the same problem. The other knight can see the ghost wolf behind Zole and is wondering if there is one behind himself. (Really, why don't they just ask each other if there's a ghost wolf behind them? I suppose they could lie though).

Rillflag27
November 2nd, 2003, 08:44 PM
I think this paragraph gives it away "As he puzzled this out, with a confused look on his face, the knight of Lord Albert also stood and looked confused. And the ghost wolf behind this knight prepared to pounce. " "This" is the key word. I think there is no wolf behind Zole. If I'm wrong then I have one question...if Zole could see the ghost wolf but it was out of lord alberts knight's site then how could Zole see it?

Martin the Warrior
November 3rd, 2003, 05:40 PM
Just to make it official, Chesk got it.

Ghost Wolf Answer #2
-by Rawley Cooper

The riddle: What does the Zole the knight do next? Is there a wolf behind him or not?

The answer: Yes. There is a ghost wolf behind him. And he spins to attack it, hoping his opponent will be kept busy with the wolf behind him.

As the story stated, Zole had no evidence that there was a ghost wolf behind him. No sight (it was hidden behind him), no sound, no smell, etc. In the same way his opponent had no evidence that there was a ghost wolf behind his own back. But if there wasn't a wolf behind Zole, his opponent wouldn't have any reason to be confused. Just Zole looking confused wouldn't have been enough. After all, his opponent could not possibly know there was a wolf at his own back. The only reason Zole even suspected there might be a ghost wolf behind himself was because he saw one behind this opponent.

If there was no wolf behind Zole, his opponent wouldn't have been confused. In fact, he would have probably attacked right off. But he was confused, so he must have been wondering if there was a ghost wolf behind himself also. Which meant he had to have seen a ghost wolf (or something dangerous) behind Zole.

To continue the story: As Zole attacks his ghost wolf, his opponent is still confused and so is slow to attack Zole while his back is turned. Zole, defeats the ghost wolf quickly, and turns to see the other ghost wolf finishing off the knight of Lord Albert. Zole attacks this ghost wolf also, and after a hard battle wins. Then the bodies of both ghost wolves disappear as a large crowd of people come to help Zole with the body of his dead enemy. The story spreads of the knight of Lord Bently who was saved from demonic forces by logic.

Now the riddles become tough. Remember the answer to this one as it will give you some clues to work with (as far as puzzling out the logic goes-- there are no hidden meanings).

Ghost Wolf Riddle #3
-by Rawley Cooper

Zole, a knight in the service to Lord Bently, was hurrying to deliver yet another important message. The day after his encounter with the ghost wolves, a third Lord, Lord Chug joined the war with Lord Bently and Lord Albert. So there were three Lords and three armies fighting, each against both the other two. He was not happy that his mission had brought him to this same area of the country.

He was even less happy when he noticed he was on the border of the same meadow. Particularly because this was the 1 year anniversary of his last trip here, and 2 years since the first knight of Lord Albert was killed here. There was a clear pattern here, but the old women said to ignore patterns and trust to logic.

His duty, however was clear. He was being chased by patrols of both his Lord's enemies. Patrols for Lord Bently were also nearby, but most likely on the other side of the meadow. If he took the time to go around the meadow, he would be caught. If he crossed quickly, he had a chance. So he had no choice but to brave the meadow again.

And, just as he entered the meadow, he saw exactly what he expected and feared to see. A third of the way around the meadow, to his right and left, two more knights entered the meadow exactly when he did. As he approached (exactly as expected) he recognized them as knights of Lord Albert and Lord Chug. And each was being followed by a ghost wolf.

They all three stopped in the center of the field. Each knew they needed to kill their opponent quickly or be caught (maybe) by patrols of an enemy Lord. Each had heard the stories of Zole's last encounter to this meadow, including the dangers of the ghost wolves and the mysterious gypsy's warning. Each knew that there might (or might not) be a ghost wolf behind him. This time, there was no question, because even if there was no ghost wolf behind Zole, there was one behind both his opponents, and each could easily see the one behind the other (but not the one behind himself). Each was looking confused, as was Zole, which also was to be expected in this case. The "easy" answer last time didn't work here. All three knights could see at least one ghost wolf and so had something to be confused about. And the gypsy said logic, not patterns, would solve the riddle.

Zole quickly reviewed anything that might help him puzzle this out. The problem was one of logic, and he was good at solving logic puzzles (as his last adventure proved). But his opponents were each intelligent knights and had all the same clues and logic he had. All three should be equal to the task of solving this problem. And all three were confused as they reviewed the facts and went through all the possibilities.

But Zole puzzled out the answer. Even with his familiarity with the problem, it took him longer this time then last. But again, logic showed him the solution.

The riddle: What does Zole do next? (or if you prefer, is there a ghost wolf behind Zole or not?)

Good luck!

Chesk Otter
November 3rd, 2003, 09:20 PM
This wording in this one's kind of confusing.

There is a ghost wolf behind Zole. Each of the other two knights see Zole and the other knight and are confused because they are wondering if there is one behind themselves. If there was not a ghost wolf behind Zole, the other knights would see that and know that the second one would have to be behind themselves. If there were only two, then the knights would know there at least couldn't be one because both of the other knights are looking confused. I don't see how it's that different from the last one. Can you explain it more clearly?

PiarasJ
November 4th, 2003, 12:15 AM
Nah there isn't a ghost wolf behind Zole. My reasoning is that the gypsy told him not to trust in patterns, and it would be a clear pattern if there was a wolf behind him as well as behind the other two knights. (One knight=one wolf - two knights=two wolves - three knights=three wolves.) But then there is a hole in that logic- one should never trust a gypsy, because she told him last time not to trust in patterns, and there was indeed a pattern then (1 knight=1 wolf, 2 knights=2 wolves), so she must be a liar, therefore there could well be a wolf behind him. Alternatively, if she were telling the truth, then the pattern might not be broken until next time he visits the meadow. ie: there is a wolf behind all three, but NEXT time the pattern will end. So to break that down, the gypsy has no effect on the riddle whatsoever, because it's impossible to tell if she is lying or not. But in the world of the riddle, I reason that we should trust everything as fact, as Martin said that there were no hidden meanings- therefore the gypsy was telling the truth, and there is no wolf behind him. So what does he do? He draws his sword, and waits to see whether the other two knights survive, then fights them if they do. [edit] I accidentally typed "then fights them if they do not" but I don't suppost he's much into fencing with dead men. [end edit]


Here's some of my thinking that I can't bear to delete. ;)
"And, just as he entered the meadow, he saw exactly what he expected and feared to see. A third of the way around the meadow, to his right and left, two more knights entered the meadow exactly when he did." If this were the case, the answer lies not in linear thinking, but rather in the question of "How big is the meadow?" Surely if they are a third of the way around the meadow from him and they enter it at exactly the same time, then they are far enough away from Zole for him to quickly check behind him to see if there is a wolf following him, then if there is, kill it. But the riddle states that "They all three stopped in the center of the field." therefore they are daft, and probably have not the intelligence to draw their swords in any case. But this is not true, because the riddle also states that "his opponents were each intelligent knights" and "he was good at solving logic puzzles". So this brings me to assume that the gypsy was indeed lying and the pattern has carried through and there is a wolf behind each knight, but all three knights believed her, so since they can see that there is a wolf behind the other two, they all three think that they are the only one without a wolf behind them. Therefore they kept walking to the centre of the field thinking they are safe from wolves.

Martin the Warrior
November 8th, 2003, 07:51 PM
Both answers are incorrect. As Rawley beat into us when we were originally trying to solve these riddles, saying "if there was a wolf behind him there would be a pattern, which means there isn't" is not logic and is, therefore, incorrect.

As for your question, Chesk-- it's different from the last problem because the solution to the last problem can be summed up with, if there had not been a ghost wolf behind Zole, the other knight would have attacked immediately since all he saw was Zole. But, since he didn't, he saw a ghost wolf and began pondering if there was one behind himself, as well. That doesn't work this time because, regardless of whether or not there's a ghost wolf behind Zole, each knight can see at least one ghost wolf. Knight A sees one behind Knight B, Knight B sees one behind Knight A, and Zole sees one behind Knight A and Knight B. So, a look of confusion on their face is not a clear indication that there is or is not one behind Zole, as they could be confused over seeing the one behind the other knight.

So, thinking this through will be tougher than before-- but all the clues are there. Just read carefully and think logically.

If no one gets it by Monday, I'll post the answer and we'll end the riddles there, seeing as how the last two are the toughest of the bunch.

Good luck!

PiarasJ
November 9th, 2003, 05:17 AM
At the risk of seeming ignorant- Why is that answer not logical? Perhaps it would be illogical to trust your life to the words of a gypsy, is that what you're getting at? Or is it something that I've missed. (More than likely) The gypsy said to trust in logic, not patterns, so if there is a pattern here, she was lying. That's about as logical as my mind will work right now sorry. O.o I'm hangin' out for the answer!

Martin the Warrior
November 9th, 2003, 06:23 PM
It's not a logical answer for the simple reason that it takes absolutely nothing from the actual situation into account-- it's, essentially, guesswork. Blind faith in the old gypsy's words. What's more, it relies far more heavily on there being a pattern that needs to be broken than on logic. The gypsy didn't say there wouldn't be similarities between each case, only that trusting in a pattern would be wrong and each must be solved logically.

It would be akin to dismissing somebody's words with the reasoning that "they can't be right all the time..." regardless of what that person is actually saying, even if it's as simple as "The sky is blue."

Keep trying, though. :)

PiarasJ
November 10th, 2003, 02:54 AM
Ah cool. Can't figure it out though, they're heaps clever, compliments to the chef.

dandin1
November 10th, 2003, 11:36 AM
Yes there is a Ghost Wolf behind Zole. Or at least that's what I beleive.
If there wasn't a ghost wolf behind him, the other knights would attack him. But I can't end the explanation here because the other knights are thinking 'What if there is a ghost wolf behind ME?' so why would they attack? Well, they would attack Zole because if look behind themselves and attack the Wolf, not knowing there is one there, they will be killed by Zole. But, there is a chance that there isn't a ghost wolf either, and it's their only chance. So if there wasn't a Ghost Wolf behind Zole, they would attack him, and there not attacking him, wich means that there is a ghost wolf behind Zole.

I hope I explained it properly...

Martin the Warrior
November 12th, 2003, 05:53 PM
No one got it (even with some extra time), so I'll go ahead and post the answer.

Ghost Wolf Answer #3
-by Rawley Cooper

The riddle: What does the Zole the knight do next? Is there a wolf behind him or not?

The answer: Yes. There is a ghost wolf behind him. And he spins to attack it, hoping his two opponents will be kept busy with each other or with the wolves behind each of them.

This problem is like the last one. But with one important difference, there are three knights and all three are equally confused. There could be one, two, or three wolves. If there are three wolves than Zole knows that there is one behind him, but if there are only two (since he sees two) Zole knows there are none behind him. His opponents might see one or two wolves (depending on if there is one behind Zole or not). So they must deside if there is one, two, or three wolves. But if there is no wolf behind Zole, each of his opponents would see only one wolf. They are both smart enough to know that if there were only one wolf, the knight being followed by the that one wolf wouldn't know it was there. So if there was only one wolf, than the knight that one wolf was following wouldn't be confused (that was the solution to the last riddle). So each of them knows that there can't be only one wolf either because they see two wolves (like Zole) or because they see the confusion on each of their opponent's face and logic it out.

Now, if one of his opponents sees only one wolf but knows by logic that there is at least two wolves, they would know the "hidden" second wolf would be behind themselves. But if they see two wolves, then the problem becomes much harder, since there is no way to know if there is two or three. So since each is equally confused, and each is intelligent enough to solve the last riddle (especially since they had heard what the answer was). Then each must see two wolves. But the only way that all three could see two wolves is for all three to have a wolf behind him. In other words, Zole knows that the only way for both of his opponents to see two wolves is if they see a wolf behind Zole. So since they are still confused after enough time to piece this all out, that means there must be a wolf behind Zole.

To continue the story: As Zole attacks his ghost wolf, his opponents quickly turn to defend themselves from the wolf that they guess is behind themselves. But they are a few seconds to late. The instance Zole turns, all three ghost wolves attack, and only Zole is in position to defend himself. The battle is heated, but Zole is finally victorious. As before the bodies of all the ghost wolves disappear as a large crowd of people come to see Zole win. The story spreads of how Zole was again saved from demonic forces by logic. And Zole got many free drinks in the nights that follow, as curious people ask him to explain "Just one more time" how he knew there had to be a third wolf.

And there you go. As I said before, since the last two riddles are insanely difficult, far more than this riddle was, we'll just end here. Glad you enjoyed figuring them out-- congrats to Cornflower and Chesk for solving the first two riddles!

Rillflag27
November 14th, 2003, 12:28 PM
but dandin got it!

The Red Badger
November 14th, 2003, 06:52 PM
His logic looks incomplete and incorrect to me.