I really like this game. The set-up is easy to understand and I can see how students can have a lot of fun with this. The Calamity Table is hilarious, it must have been really fun to come up with the different calamities. And, lest not forget the design of the document, it's neat, minimalist and stylish. (I feel embarrassed for putting zero effort into design of my own game manual)

I'm thinking a bit about the restrictions you impose on the consequentialists. Is there a particular reason why you decided to have these restrictions? After all, if they are supposed to be true consequentialists (i.e. not rule consequentialists) then they should make the parents give up the baby by any means necessary, right? But perhaps it's about preventing the game and the players become a bit hostile towards the parents?

This is really cool! Especially like that you gave folks the opportunity to recreate it in-class. Do you have any experiences playing it with students that you would like to share? I'm curious to hear which argument(s), if any, a consequentialist gave convinced Loving Parents to give up Baby.

I appreciate the production quality and clarity of your document. As you indicate in the teacher's supplement, the game could be used or adapted to explore a number of different ethical theories in addition to Mill's utilitarianism. Divine command theory in particular comes to my mind, considering Plato's Euthyphro and Kierkegaard's discussion of the binding of Isaac in Fear and Trembling.

Do you think the consequentialists' arguments may change or even challenge each other depending on their particular readings of Mill and/or consequentialism in general? I wonder what the responses to various calamities would look like with one "rule consequentialist" and one "act consequentialist," for example.