PDA

View Full Version : Looking for philosophical debates to test my players



Morithias
2012-05-04, 07:09 PM
The demon king campaign is going well so far. My players show interest in it, and I've started to design and work on the setting as a whole.

The campaign revolves around the old D&D question of "is it okay to kill evil creatures like demons if they are helpless/surrender".

This philosophical question takes form as they are defending the prisoner, their 16 year old childhood friend named "Miki" who is the reincarnation of the god of fiends, who if she fully awakens will unite the netherworld and conquest all of reality. She is currently a NG healer.

This raises the question of, if the angels and paladins who want to kill her or throw her in a dungeon under mind control to control her uprising are misguided or evil, since the last two times the god of fiends raised it killed off two pantheons of gods. (Yeah the god of fiends is basically the snarl if it was a 16 year old girl, and intelligent, so it's actually MORE dangerous).

So far the second philosophical question I have come up with to challenge my players is "the intelligent should rule".

This takes the form of the first empire they come across, the empire of Zeth. In Zeth magic users rule, when a child is born they are tested and attempted to be taught magic, in other words if your intelligent score is high enough you will learn to cast.

Edit: I think I was unclear here due to another post. You don't NEED to go full spellcaster, you're free to leave to pursue other interests after your first spell. It's more a matter of testing your mental functions, kinda like a magical IQ test.

If you're too dumb to learn magic though? Enjoy your life as a second class slave. Used for manual labor and not allowed to vote in the elections.

This raises the debate of a "Geniocracy/Noocracy" government. Is there a justified argument is letting the intelligent rule over those who frankly are too dumb to live? Is this system really so bad if it keeps people like Peter Griffin from causing damage to the society as a whole?

I am looking for more ideas for future debates to test my players. What kind of philosophical and sociopolitical ideas/debates have you used and tested your players with? Do you have any good philosophical debates you think would make good tests to make my players think about the world at large?

DO NOT USE THIS THREAD TO ARGUE. I am looking for IDEAS to test MY players with, not looking to cause a huge flame war.

kaomera
2012-05-04, 07:41 PM
The campaign revolves around the "prisoner's dilemma" the old D&D question of "is it okay to kill evil creatures like demons if they are helpless/surrender".
That's not the Prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)... If anything it's ''the prisoners dilemma'', or maybe ''the PCs-who-have-taken-a-prisoner's dilemma''... In any case, using a well-established term like ''the Prisoner's dilemma'' may result in some confusion and possibly unhelpful responses. I can't personally offer that much helpful advice on your actual question because I've never found players who were particularly receptive to this kind of ethical Catch-22 (either because of general disinterest or my won inability to run such a scenario in a fun way), and have mostly avoided such things.

Aidan305
2012-05-04, 07:42 PM
I'm not really going to answer, but what I will do is post a link to the Tales of Wyre (http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/58227-tales-wyre.html).

It's a story that "began" when the paladin decided not to simply kill the fiend because she was evil, but to accept her surrender and attempt to redeem her.

It got Epic. And raises many more interesting philosophical points along the way, such as "Is it evil to summon and control devils?"

Morithias
2012-05-04, 08:45 PM
That's not the Prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)... If anything it's ''the prisoners dilemma'', or maybe ''the PCs-who-have-taken-a-prisoner's dilemma''... In any case, using a well-established term like ''the Prisoner's dilemma'' may result in some confusion and possibly unhelpful responses. I can't personally offer that much helpful advice on your actual question because I've never found players who were particularly receptive to this kind of ethical Catch-22 (either because of general disinterest or my won inability to run such a scenario in a fun way), and have mostly avoided such things.

My apologies...that's what it was called in the Counter Monkey episode, or maybe I misunderstood the episode.

They're not really Catch-22 scenarios. I'm looking for questions where there is no "right" answer. Where both sides have a point, I want my players to basically argue at the table (in character) and see how they react to things like the intelligent oppressing the stupid, and other debates.

If they aid the rebels in Zeth. They will gain the aid of a unit of warblades in their final battle to protect the Demon King when the do the ritual to cure her, if they side with the Zeth ruler, they gain the aid of a unit of warmages.

Either side will get them to their goal, it just matters on what side do the players choose is the "right" one, cause in the end, in these debate there is no 100% right answer.

erikun
2012-05-04, 11:24 PM
Take any philosophical idea, then convert it into an adventure. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes) might be a good place to start, if you're not familiar with any. Just a couple to think of:

The Ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) could be used for a magical artefact that held power for the king, as was stolen. Upon tracking it down, the characters discover that it has been remodeled several times, with various jewelers replacing parts of the artefact over the years. Does the party take the time to track down the 'real' artefact that was stolen, or do they gather up the assorted replacement parts and put them together? Which is the real one?

Taking an idea from Turing tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test), an ailing king is failing mentally, and is subjecting him/herself to enchantments that produce actions that she would do if mentally able. However, some people find out about this, and believe that the wizard placing the enchantments is controlling the king (or that the enchantments themselves are just requesting more enchantments).

Missing square puzzle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_square_puzzle) might make for a good puzzle-room.

A Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat) could make for an interesting monster or encounter - something that, if viewed, would be one possibility or another, but if not analyzed could potentially be both. It could work as a social situation; if a ruler has support of the priest guild because he is believed to be alive and support from the necromancer guild because he is believed to be a lich, then revealing which is the truth (even making a point to find out) would cause one of the groups to revolt against the state.

Waddacku
2012-05-05, 02:38 AM
Apologies for not being of help. I'd just like to point out I saw what you did there, Morithias, and I find the use of it for a (presumably) serious game hilarious and applaud you.

Telonius
2012-05-05, 02:40 AM
The Ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) could be used for a magical artefact that held power for the king, as was stolen. Upon tracking it down, the characters discover that it has been remodeled several times, with various jewelers replacing parts of the artefact over the years. Does the party take the time to track down the 'real' artefact that was stolen, or do they gather up the assorted replacement parts and put them together? Which is the real one?



You could use a variant on this with a Programmed Amnesia or Mindrape spell. A notorious criminal has been subjected to one of these spells and has no memories of his misdeeds. The characters were sent to track him down, but now that they've found him, is it really just to punish him?

Morithias
2012-05-05, 02:53 AM
Apologies for not being of help. I'd just like to point out I saw what you did there, Morithias, and I find the use of it for a (presumably) serious game hilarious and applaud you.

What? You mean the whole "Stealing ideas from a hentai videogame series and turning them into serious campaigns" thing?


You could use a variant on this with a Programmed Amnesia or Mindrape spell. A notorious criminal has been subjected to one of these spells and has no memories of his misdeeds. The characters were sent to track him down, but now that they've found him, is it really just to punish him?

That is a VERY good one, and it ties in VERY nicely to the core question of Miki's curse and the morality of killing people for things they haven't done. Miki is 100% innocent she has done nothing currently, her crime is in the future.

This man's crime is in the past, but he has no memory or understanding of what he did. His future is unclear.

I like it. Thanks Telonius.

Waddacku
2012-05-05, 05:45 AM
That is exactly what I mean.

Starshade
2012-05-05, 06:51 AM
Hm, an twist I could come up with, is the reincarnated god of fiend knows she was evil in an previous incarnation, currently don't know much more though, and works actively against evil, claiming she will never turn evil even if she remembered who she was.

hamishspence
2012-05-05, 06:59 AM
The Anti-Antichrist trope is basically this. Adam from Pratchett & Gaiman's Good Omens, for example.

sol_kanar
2012-05-05, 07:23 AM
An interesting dilemma I used in one campaign concerns hiding and/or destroying dangerous knowledge.

For example, let's suppose that we have a nation/town/region where the average standard of living is very high. People are well-fed, well-defended, and ruled by an elective council which really has the interest of the people at heart.
The only problem is that, before the council, the nation/town/region was ruled by a hereditary monarchy: the last king was basically a tyrant, so him and all his heirs (mostly children) have been poisoned and/or killed by his ministers, who later reformed the kingdom in a democracy.
The PCs might stumble upon a report of this events or even a long-lost heir to the king. The PCs know that if they spread the knowledge/if they reveal the heir, people might revolt against the council and a civil war might start.
So, what is the right thing to do in this context?

Jay R
2012-05-05, 09:03 AM
1. This one (http://xkcd.com/246/) might cause them some difficulty.

2. They slay some evil person. As he dies, he says, "Please .. get this magic sword back to my family. It's a family heirloom ... it's been in our family for generations, and without it, our family won't be able to ...." (He dies.)

[Or, in searching the dead body, they find his will, detailing exactly who he leaves all his equipment to. The money's supposed to go to an orphanage.]

Morithias
2012-05-05, 10:22 AM
Hm, an twist I could come up with, is the reincarnated god of fiend knows she was evil in an previous incarnation, currently don't know much more though, and works actively against evil, claiming she will never turn evil even if she remembered who she was.

Everyone knows the god of fiends was evil in a previous incarnation. She's a NG healer who just wants to help people and protection. She can vow never to turn evil easily...

..however that vow doesn't give you a bonus to will saves, which is what she needs to make to keep the god's powers in check. You see Miki goes down what is known as the "path of six"; six stages of corruption until she finally turns fully evil.

And the worse part? Evil feels good. By the time she reaches stage six the NG Healer is long gone. Oh she still has her memories and friendships to the PC's, but that doesn't change that fact that she now considers "Join me as my generals or I will rip your souls from your bodies and bind them to statues in my castle" to be a fair offer to make to them.

Peelee
2012-05-05, 10:59 AM
Soon to start a campaign of my own, where the main plotline revolves around finding a stopping a demilich (i realize I suck at making original plots) with multiple phylacteries. There also exists a floating island with with a city-state on it (again, I realize I suck at making original plots). Backstory is it was a highly oppressed village, until a powerful mage came along and created a large gem that lifted the village and the surrounding land into the sky, freeing them from the evil empire dominating them. It became peaceful and prosperous, with a statue of the mage holding the gemstone that keeps the island aloft.

Twist here is that the mage was the polymorphed demilich, and the crystal keeping the island up is his phylactery. In order to destroy the lich, the crystal must be destroyed, which would doom all the inhabitants of the city (ha! Halfway decent plotline for the win!).

Of course, it might not help much without the whole lich thing, since that means the gem HAS to be destroyed to permanently get rid of the evil. So take that as you will.

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-05, 11:51 AM
Don't forget infrastructure! Is it really worth the trouble of assassinating or removing the current rulers? What if a bunch of shadowy cloaked figures were waiting in the background for the right time to step in and take the whole of civilization for themselves, or what if removing the leaders heads from society just threw everyone back to the dark ages without their power and push for progression. Maybe the infrastructure of the city was never held in the people the pcs go after, maybe their acts of rebellion only served to throw it into a worse state. War doesn't bring the best in people after all.

Zonugal
2012-05-05, 03:34 PM
I am looking for more ideas for future debates to test my players. What kind of philosophical and sociopolitical ideas/debates have you used and tested your players with? Do you have any good philosophical debates you think would make good tests to make my players think about the world at large?

Throwing any standard decision modeled after a conflict between Utilitarianism & Deontology would do well. That is after all probably the biggest & most reoccurring debate in academic-based ethics (too which I received my undergraduate degree).

Besides any strict scenario, a really good morality challenge is looking at your player's characters' morality/philosophies themselves and merely pushing them to their limits.

A good morality challenge should end with the characters feeling awful, and the very best morality challenges should end in a manner reminiscent of a Greek tragedy.

Cerlis
2012-05-05, 05:51 PM
reminds me of when during ophans week , you take a little blood elf girl to the temple of time, in which 2 guards (weapons ready) charge her. The Head (time) dragon stops them saying "The girl is innocent. She will not be punished for what she does....or fails to do....in the future."

Freaked me out. Expessially since she seemed rather crafty

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-05, 06:01 PM
reminds me of when during ophans week , you take a little blood elf girl to the temple of time, in which 2 guards (weapons ready) charge her. The Head (time) dragon stops them saying "The girl is innocent. She will not be punished for what she does....or fails to do....in the future."

Bronze Dragonflight are True Nuetral though I thought. Its not whether you are good or evil, its whether your a threat to time/space itself. And their Infinity Dragonflight cousins follow an even more insane foreign logic.
When you get into other cultures you run into Morality disonance, then your in a different problem entirely. I mean dear god, the idea of removing the publics leaders and letting it all fall to barbaric savages? Or even allowing those neanderthals in charge of anything is blasphemy and insane!

KnightDisciple
2012-05-05, 06:32 PM
I'm not really going to answer, but what I will do is post a link to the Tales of Wyre (http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/58227-tales-wyre.html).

It's a story that "began" when the paladin decided not to simply kill the fiend because she was evil, but to accept her surrender and attempt to redeem her.

It got Epic. And raises many more interesting philosophical points along the way, such as "Is it evil to summon and control devils?"

Wow. I'm only 3 pages in, but indeed, epic.

I will say that at this point, 2 things detract a bit from my enjoyment.

1.)I wish the repenting succubus actually played a larger direct role in things.

2.)It feels sorta...I dunno. "Preachy" is too strong a word, but it definitely feels like intentionally or not, the players (especially the druid) were trying to "get a point across". Then again, maybe over-reading it.

Still awesome; wish I could be in a campaign 1/4 that detailed and awesome.

moritheil
2012-05-06, 08:12 PM
Either side will get them to their goal, it just matters on what side do the players choose is the "right" one, cause in the end, in these debate there is no 100% right answer.

The thing is, DnD includes an end-run around irreducible problems of morality - the empirical solution. The paladin or cleric detects evil. Done. (Possible cross-checking with detect magic or more powerful magic if you're worried about Nondetection-type spells.)

I realize that's somewhat facetious and the DM can easily houserule around such things, but the flip side of the coin is that the alignment system is a simplified list of rules that is meant for quick and dirty assignment of NPCs and monsters to Team A, Team B, or Team C. It's not really intended as a framework for debates about whether good and evil are best considered ontological qualities, the result of nature or nurture, etc.

The end result of all of this forcing the players to do things that the rules don't clearly cover strikes me as being similar to telling them to get several digits of pi out of an abacus. Yeah, it can be done if you really know how to use an abacus. But it might be annoying to a lot of people because it's not the most convenient tool for the task; a modern calculator is better at that. And when people take a test nowadays, they expect to be able to use modern calculators; handing them abacuses will cause a small riot.


Besides any strict scenario, a really good morality challenge is looking at your player's characters' morality/philosophies themselves and merely pushing them to their limits.

I have to question whether it is the characters you are challenging there, or the players themselves. Consider the case of a thoroughly inarticulate player of a cleric with maxed Knowledge (Religion) ranks: his character can solve theological problems and propose various litmus tests for morality, but he cannot. Either the cleric becomes a DMPC, thus depriving the player of enjoyment by depriving him of control, or the player is forced to try to act like someone much more highly educated/articulate than he is, thus depriving the player (and possibly the group) of enjoyment by being far less competent than he person he is supposed to be and breaking suspension of disbelief.

The reverse situation, a very articulate and knowledgeable person with an uneducated/inarticulate character, strikes me as little better: either he helps the group, but breaks role by using his metagame knowledge, or he deliberately plays down to his character's level, and doesn't help the group despite knowing all the while that he could if he were allowed to.


A good morality challenge should end with the characters feeling awful, and the very best morality challenges should end in a manner reminiscent of a Greek tragedy.

Perhaps. But if true, this seems to run into a separate problem: in the groups I played DnD with, that was definitely not an acceptable feeling at the end of the night. I'm not saying that people universally don't want to see philosophy - only that you should be very careful to ensure that players are OK with the gaming experience you propose to give them.


All that said, I do have an ethical argument to propose for your players: is the system that offers absolute empirical knowledge of morality itself moral and ethical? That is, is the very fact that deities offer spells like detect good and detect evil, itself good and fair? Does it shoehorn some people into always acting evil, because that is what is expected of them?

Zonugal
2012-05-06, 08:35 PM
I have to question whether it is the characters you are challenging there, or the players themselves. Consider the case of a thoroughly inarticulate player of a cleric with maxed Knowledge (Religion) ranks: his character can solve theological problems and propose various litmus tests for morality, but he cannot. Either the cleric becomes a DMPC, thus depriving the player of enjoyment by depriving him of control, or the player is forced to try to act like someone much more highly educated/articulate than he is, thus depriving the player (and possibly the group) of enjoyment by being far less competent than he person he is supposed to be and breaking suspension of disbelief.

The reverse situation, a very articulate and knowledgeable person with an uneducated/inarticulate character, strikes me as little better: either he helps the group, but breaks role by using his metagame knowledge, or he deliberately plays down to his character's level, and doesn't help the group despite knowing all the while that he could if he were allowed to.

I think this a problem beyond the sphere of just throwing ethically/moral challenges at a party. Any normal person is going to have a bit of difficulty portraying a Int 24 Wizard, its just a latent difficulty within role-playing.

I'd say if the DM sat down and requested each of the players reflect on their characters & try to explore the character's moral compass. It can be an amazing exercise for them and allows the DM to better encompass all their different perspectives.


Perhaps. But if true, this seems to run into a separate problem: in the groups I played DnD with, that was definitely not an acceptable feeling at the end of the night. I'm not saying that people universally don't want to see philosophy - only that you should be very careful to ensure that players are OK with the gaming experience you propose to give them.


I think this should be handled with a DM expressing certain expectations regarding how the game is going to branch off. But as long as each player is told that they (or their characters) may be challenged in a more personal way, I see no great problem with injecting a sense of tragedy into the game.

After all, sometimes if you want the characters to rise you need to pull them down first.

Also for the original poster, how about doing a an ethical situation taking inspiration from the Judea-Christian tale of Abraham but with the added perspective that Kierkegaard expands upon in Fear and Trembling? Basically you'd challenge a character of faith by having a message from their deity asking them to sacrifice an innocent.

moritheil
2012-05-06, 09:19 PM
I think this a problem beyond the sphere of just throwing ethically/moral challenges at a party. Any normal person is going to have a bit of difficulty portraying a Int 24 Wizard, its just a latent difficulty within role-playing.

True, except that they'd have to seek out or agree to playing such a wizard in order to be confronted with the necessity of playing Int 24+. Dumping a moral dilemma on the party removes that agency, that ability of a player to choose to be tested in such a way or choose to not have to deal with it.


After all, sometimes if you want the characters to rise you need to pull them down first.

Sure, but we were speaking of downer endings. :smallsmile:


Also for the original poster, how about doing a an ethical situation taking inspiration from the Judea-Christian tale of Abraham but with the added perspective that Kierkegaard expands upon in Fear and Trembling? Basically you'd challenge a character of faith by having a message from their deity asking them to sacrifice an innocent.

To be honest, I'd think this would be a nonissue for the most faithful characters unless their players were deliberately aiming at this kind of RP. I mean, most DnD parties already kill based on information provided by their deities (via divinations, all the way down to Detect Evil.) There already exists this kind of implicit trust. You're just asking the players to rationalize it.

hamishspence
2012-05-07, 02:34 AM
I mean, most DnD parties already kill based on information provided by their deities (via divinations, all the way down to Detect Evil.) There already exists this kind of implicit trust. You're just asking the players to rationalize it.

Some of the books (and other sources) do say that this is not the way to stay Good-aligned- Dragon 358's Paladin Guide, Drow of the Underdark's discussions of how paladins cope in an Underdark setting, Eberron Campaign Setting's discussion of how not every Evil being deserves to be attacked by adventurers.

Not to mention the various ways of pinging Detect Evil without actually being Evil.

Acanous
2012-05-07, 05:18 AM
Wait, which Hentai game series is this based off of?

Also, I played in a campaign with a floating island kept aloft by a magical sigil being used pull the entire plane into hell, with an unknown time limit.
My character trashed that sigil so fast, over half the party still hadn't decided on what to do with it before they were casting feather fall or Plane shift.
(The lives of those in the city, weighed against the lives of everything on the plane? The Needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.)

A Repentant villain against an avenging hero might be a good way to test them. Consider an evil man, who killed a wizard's brother. The man is now dying of a magical disease, and repents, regretting his earlier actions and donating his posessions and efforts into helping others.

The wizard CAST this disease upon the man, and sees his deathbed repentance as a cheap way of trying to escape hell, so he's offering the party some decent reward to watch this man, and use an item to alert the Wizard to his death, so the wizard can cast Trap the Soul and gueruntee this evil man never gets to heaven.

The man, however, seems genuinely sorry for his prior actions, explaining that he never knew what suffering was like until he became afflicted with this disease, and no longer detects as evil.

Madeiner
2012-05-07, 06:18 AM
I like philisophical dilemmas very much and try to insert as many as i can IMC.

Here's something that i have put in my game:

- "Good" nation discovers that a "foreign" nation has probably been "slaved by demons". This is actually true, but good nation doesnt know it. Good nation wants to free "captured nation" because "captured nation" has technology, weapons, magical crystals. In "freeing" the captured nation, good nation annexes the former demon slaves and takes all their equipment. This was completely based on USA-Iraq scenario (good nation being the "United states of Midgar", and conquered nation was "Gnominia", the war was of course called "Operation Gnominia Freedom", i liked this cliche a lot)

- During the capture of the foreign nation, they found strange hostile mutated creatures in the sewers, that they correctly identify as former gnomes. One of them is not hostile and can still think as a gnome, and helps the party, even saves the life of one PC. The party finds an old photograph of this gnome and his fiancee. The party discovers that his fiancee died because of a structural collapse that THEY have caused while assaulting the city. The creature cries as it discovers that his fiancee is dead.
Later, after the city is conquered and days pass, this creature is studied, and is starting to degenerate, becoming a monster like all other creatures, incapable of thinking clearly. The creature will completely mutate in days.
What does the party do? My party considered releasing their "friend" to live with the other mutated creatures in the sewers, but in the end they decided to kill him quickly with a disintegrate, hoping not to make him suffer.

- The party finds an undead couple hiding in a ship with a small half-undead baby. The couple was turned undead by a monster when the mother was pregnant. The child was born after they were turned and is mostly undead and registers as evil.
The father has become evil, killing people trying to protect his wife and child from "adventurers" that wanted to destroy them because of their undead status. The mother also registers as evil, but her only concern was to keep her child safe.
My party talked for 2 real-life hours trying to decide what to do with them.
In the end, they decided to kill the father, exiling the mother, and sending the child to friends to be kept safe.
Years late, the child was "rescued" by the BBEG, who set him against the adventurers that killed his father, in an attempt to make them feel miserable for their pity (BBEG is not actually against the charaters, but is convinced that pity is what is destroying this world, currently invaded by demons)

- During a special mission inside an old utopian city led by a rogue AI, the paladin of freedom was sealed in a room while his friends were in the nearby room. The paladin could see them, but they couldn't see him. The party was attacked by harmless prisoners, mentally controlled and disguised as monsters. The paladin was told the truth, and was given two choices.
Either he let their friend slaughter the prisoners (he knew they would have done so, as the AI made them fight real monsters many times to leech their XP) and falling because of that, or he could use an artifact in the room, mentally controlling his friends and making them stop the attack, but breaking his paladin of freedom code, thereby falling.
The goal of the AI was to make him fall of course, because he was immune to her mental conditioning incantations.
(I have to say that i talked this with the paladin player before doing it, and he was ok with that)

I should have many more like that if you want to hear :)

Tamer Leon
2012-05-07, 08:12 AM
Give them simple, but very heavily weighted, choices.
An idea that came from Bastion:
Give the party an NPC that starts off as an ally. Not a physically powerful person, but charismatic and intelligent. At some point, perhaps he becomes misinformed about something the PC's are doing and turns against them for it. You can give them simple options that will have drastic effects on the game world. Try to explain things, or retaliate? Or perhaps flee, and be hunted?

The easiest way to give players moral dilemmas (if they're actually into roleplay, at least) is to just give them plot-changing decisions.

Granted, if you're in a group that disregards roleplay in favor of just rolling dice, well.

That plan will screw you over quite a bit, because they'll just go through and torch everything and not particularly care.

Morithias
2012-05-07, 12:15 PM
Wait, which Hentai game series is this based off of?


It's a series called "Rance" where you play as a sociopath hero who is for lack of a better term a serial rapist.

The Zeth idea came from "Rance VI" which I read about on Tv tropes. While the Demon King was stolen from "Sengoku Rance" which is one of the only games in the series to be translated to English.

I find any idea no matter where it's from is worth a good look over.

Peelee
2012-05-07, 07:48 PM
Wait, which Hentai game series is this based off of?

Also, I played in a campaign with a floating island kept aloft by a magical sigil being used pull the entire plane into hell, with an unknown time limit.
My character trashed that sigil so fast, over half the party still hadn't decided on what to do with it before they were casting feather fall or Plane shift.
(The lives of those in the city, weighed against the lives of everything on the plane? The Needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.)


Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable solution to the destruction of the world. But take out the world-ending and replace if with a a much, much lesser evil. No threat of destruction of all sentients. No plans for world domination or subjugation, just a guy who likes to have a little fun now and again, in a very bad way. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but how do the need of the few stack up against a different few? Would waiting and tryIng to find an alternate solution be best, maybe getting epic level and finding their own way of keeping the island aloft before destroying the macguffin be better, as the townsfolk would live? On a gamble that maybe there will be fewer atrocities committed by the big bad? Would destroying the item cause more deaths than would occur if they tried for an alternate solution? Big, great evils that threaten everyone make things easy. Smaller (but still significant) evils make things much more interesting. Threats are better when directed at anyone, rather than everyone.

Morithias
2012-05-07, 07:58 PM
Big, great evils that threaten everyone make things easy. Smaller (but still significant) evils make things much more interesting. Threats are better when directed at anyone, rather than everyone.

And that is the threat of Demon King Miki in a nutshell. She is both big and small, she threatens everyone, yet threatens no one, and her targets the gods. No one else. She cares not for torture, murder, or the overall harm of society, the Demon King's goal is to kill of the gods and rule reality, nothing more. The ultimate question is how far do you let the threat go before it's considered "big enough" to act on. Step 2? Step 1? Step 5? Where do you finally draw your sword and murder her...the fact she gets more powerful the more corrupt she is doesn't help...

The ultimate "twist" to this plot is going to be what happens if Miki goes fully evil and they join/don't manage to stop her. She'll kill off all the gods and then...retreat..nothing more. Will the world fall in chaos? No...because the gods weren't holding back any sort of chaos or holding law, hell there were just as many good gods as evil ones. The world is actually fairly stable without the deities....at least until the far realm comes into the picture... DUN DUN DUN!!

Vladislav
2012-05-08, 12:47 PM
The campaign revolves around the old D&D question of "is it okay to kill evil creatures like demons if they are helpless/surrender".
In my opinion, there is a dividing line between creatures who are evil, and creatures with the "evil" subtype. The former is the normal human-like evil that we know. Well, possibly not firsthand, but at least from the TV. It can be redeemed, and sometimes is.

The latter is nothing human; there are no real-world parallels to the evil subtype. It's the embodiment of evil. Being evil is the inherent property of those creatures. They cannot become good, no more than a Water Elemental can become dry. No dilemma. Kill on sight.

DaMullet
2012-05-08, 02:39 PM
http://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/06/21/thought-experiment/

I'm just gonna leave this here...

hamishspence
2012-05-08, 02:46 PM
The latter is nothing human; there are no real-world parallels to the evil subtype. It's the embodiment of evil. Being evil is the inherent property of those creatures. They cannot become good, no more than a Water Elemental can become dry. No dilemma. Kill on sight.

there's WoTC's Succubus Paladin to contradict this though. Savage Species also has a ritual for swapping the Evil subtype for the Good subtype- though it's hazardous, it can work without killing the creature.

KnightDisciple
2012-05-08, 02:57 PM
I like philisophical dilemmas very much and try to insert as many as i can IMC.

Here's something that i have put in my game:
- "Good" nation discovers that a "foreign" nation has probably been "slaved by demons". This is actually true, but good nation doesnt know it. Good nation wants to free "captured nation" because "captured nation" has technology, weapons, magical crystals. In "freeing" the captured nation, good nation annexes the former demon slaves and takes all their equipment. This was completely based on USA-Iraq scenario (good nation being the "United states of Midgar", and conquered nation was "Gnominia", the war was of course called "Operation Gnominia Freedom", i liked this cliche a lot)
That's...that's not a "philosophical debate", that's blatantly constructed as an obvious political statement with preconceived notions about who was right and wrong. It doesn't sound fun, it sounds tedious. :smallsigh:



- During the capture of the foreign nation, they found strange hostile mutated creatures in the sewers, that they correctly identify as former gnomes. One of them is not hostile and can still think as a gnome, and helps the party, even saves the life of one PC. The party finds an old photograph of this gnome and his fiancee. The party discovers that his fiancee died because of a structural collapse that THEY have caused while assaulting the city. The creature cries as it discovers that his fiancee is dead.
Later, after the city is conquered and days pass, this creature is studied, and is starting to degenerate, becoming a monster like all other creatures, incapable of thinking clearly. The creature will completely mutate in days.
What does the party do? My party considered releasing their "friend" to live with the other mutated creatures in the sewers, but in the end they decided to kill him quickly with a disintegrate, hoping not to make him suffer.
That's an actual moral/ethical/philosophical dilemma. Plus, it adds a bit of "angst" what with them having caused him grief.
This is a good example.


- The party finds an undead couple hiding in a ship with a small half-undead baby. The couple was turned undead by a monster when the mother was pregnant. The child was born after they were turned and is mostly undead and registers as evil.
The father has become evil, killing people trying to protect his wife and child from "adventurers" that wanted to destroy them because of their undead status. The mother also registers as evil, but her only concern was to keep her child safe.
My party talked for 2 real-life hours trying to decide what to do with them.
In the end, they decided to kill the father, exiling the mother, and sending the child to friends to be kept safe.
Years late, the child was "rescued" by the BBEG, who set him against the adventurers that killed his father, in an attempt to make them feel miserable for their pity (BBEG is not actually against the charaters, but is convinced that pity is what is destroying this world, currently invaded by demons)
I have to ask what kind of undead they are. Certainly not any of the incorporeals. Definitely not skeletons or zombies. Not liches. Not mummies.
So...vampires? Positive energy undead?
This is important, because it kind of defines how evil they'd actually be. Why do they register as evil undead, but seem to retain their entire original sense of self and personality?
It sounds sorta like "prejudice made people attack them, father defended, but he was in the wrong".
Also, "pity is destroying the world" is silly. :smalltongue:



- During a special mission inside an old utopian city led by a rogue AI, the paladin of freedom was sealed in a room while his friends were in the nearby room. The paladin could see them, but they couldn't see him. The party was attacked by harmless prisoners, mentally controlled and disguised as monsters. The paladin was told the truth, and was given two choices.
Either he let their friend slaughter the prisoners (he knew they would have done so, as the AI made them fight real monsters many times to leech their XP) and falling because of that, or he could use an artifact in the room, mentally controlling his friends and making them stop the attack, but breaking his paladin of freedom code, thereby falling.
The goal of the AI was to make him fall of course, because he was immune to her mental conditioning incantations.
(I have to say that i talked this with the paladin player before doing it, and he was ok with that)

I should have many more like that if you want to hear :)
Somewhat interesting (though I'm wondering how you have a "rogue AI" in a fantasy setting).
It's good you talked it out with the paladin.
Honestly, it seems like a comparatively easy choice, though. I mean, one of those falls involves no one dying, and either way you'll have to atone. And you seem like someone who's all "there is no third path ever!", so....:smallwink:

So one good "classic" one, one that's not too bad centering on a paladin, one that's confusing, and one that...yeah.

Vladislav
2012-05-08, 03:41 PM
there's WoTC's Succubus Paladin to contradict this though. Savage Species also has a ritual for swapping the Evil subtype for the Good subtype- though it's hazardous, it can work without killing the creature.

That's very interesting, I didn't know that. I'll have to look into these. Do you have a link for the Succubus Paladin by any chance? Still, I don't think it'll make me change the way I handle those things ... I've grown to like the dividing line between "just evil" and "absolute evil".

hamishspence
2012-05-08, 03:50 PM
The Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

There's also the LN "Fall-From-Grace" in Planescape Torment.

A possible reason for certain [evil] outsiders not being "Pure evil" is that they have, at their core, a mortal soul from which they were created. Demons in particular are this.

Same might apply to celestials- they can Fall, because being [good] doesn't make them immune to flaws, corruption, and so forth.

Vladislav
2012-05-08, 03:54 PM
Thanks, very interesting. I particularly like how she 'pings' on both Detect Good and Detect Evil radar :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2012-05-08, 03:58 PM
That's a feature of alignment subtypes- even if you have the opposite alignment you retain your alignment-based vulnerabilities.

Madeiner
2012-05-09, 09:12 AM
That's...that's not a "philosophical debate", that's blatantly constructed as an obvious political statement with preconceived notions about who was right and wrong. It doesn't sound fun, it sounds tedious. :smallsigh:


Well, that probably wasnt a real philosophical dilemma. More like an etical "statement". Their nation decided to liberate the gnomes solely based on the fact that they had resources. Was it still a good act? Probably not in the strictest sense, but it provided resources for the only nation the really knows how to use them, the gnomes all got to continue their research under a new banner, everyone was happy in the end.
Had they refused to liberate the gnomes, what would have happened instead?
I really can't see "preconceived notions" here. I believe "good" nation did the right thing.




I have to ask what kind of undead they are. Certainly not any of the incorporeals. Definitely not skeletons or zombies. Not liches. Not mummies.
So...vampires? Positive energy undead?
This is important, because it kind of defines how evil they'd actually be. Why do they register as evil undead, but seem to retain their entire original sense of self and personality?
It sounds sorta like "prejudice made people attack them, father defended, but he was in the wrong".
Also, "pity is destroying the world" is silly. :smalltongue:


The undead were in a module i read somewhere. I think they were living humans that had a special template applied, something like "animated corpse" i believe.
It's been some time, and i forgot how they got turned that was (maybe a wizard wished them dead, can't remember).
They pinged evil solely because "all undead ping evil", as they are created by a negative energy force.
The dilemma wasn't about the father; he was ok with them killing him as long as his child was safe. He knew he was become more evil every day, and that he coudn't stop it.
The dilemma was that the PCs knew the kid was evil, but it was so because of heritage. He didn't do anything bad yet. But they knew he would become evil someday. But was it just to judge him now, BEFORE he actually did any damage, without even giving him a chance?


Also, i probably treat detect evil differently than most DMs. Can't really describe it, but an NPC had to torture a few people under command of devils, had to torture and maim his companions to prove himself to the devils that invaded the city so that he could open a backdoor to the occupied city, and his actions allowed the PCs to save the entire humanity. He pinged evil for years after that, but he wasn't an evil person at all.

"Pity is destroying the world" is something the BBEG thinks (he also is an ex-paladin), and is very appopriate to the campaign actually. He's evil and his methods are questionable, but he's trying to save the world from the demon invasion nonetheless, just like the PCs. And in some ways he's probably right; you can't expect to win a thousand-years war without making some sacrifices.




Somewhat interesting (though I'm wondering how you have a "rogue AI" in a fantasy setting).
It's good you talked it out with the paladin.
Honestly, it seems like a comparatively easy choice, though. I mean, one of those falls involves no one dying, and either way you'll have to atone. And you seem like someone who's all "there is no third path ever!", so....:smallwink:


Well it'd take a few pages to explain the rogue AI, as the campaign has been going on for 10 years now.
Usually there are no set path. There's the situation, and how you deal with it. In this case i needed to have his powers removed for drama/story reasons, so he HAD to fall :)
But yes it was probably an easy choice.

Morithias
2012-05-09, 01:22 PM
I must say you all have such good ideas.

Thanks for the ideas. I like the undead child thing a lot.

KnightDisciple
2012-05-09, 01:41 PM
Well, that probably wasnt a real philosophical dilemma. More like an etical "statement". Their nation decided to liberate the gnomes solely based on the fact that they had resources. Was it still a good act? Probably not in the strictest sense, but it provided resources for the only nation the really knows how to use them, the gnomes all got to continue their research under a new banner, everyone was happy in the end.
Had they refused to liberate the gnomes, what would have happened instead?
I really can't see "preconceived notions" here. I believe "good" nation did the right thing. I think I'm just going to drop this one, because it feels like it gets too close to board rules.


The undead were in a module i read somewhere. I think they were living humans that had a special template applied, something like "animated corpse" i believe.
It's been some time, and i forgot how they got turned that was (maybe a wizard wished them dead, can't remember).
They pinged evil solely because "all undead ping evil", as they are created by a negative energy force.
The dilemma wasn't about the father; he was ok with them killing him as long as his child was safe. He knew he was become more evil every day, and that he coudn't stop it.
The dilemma was that the PCs knew the kid was evil, but it was so because of heritage. He didn't do anything bad yet. But they knew he would become evil someday. But was it just to judge him now, BEFORE he actually did any damage, without even giving him a chance?If a "wizard did it", why can't a wizard un-do it, at least on the baby?
I mean, if it's not fully undead, why couldn't a limited wish, wish, miracle, or true miracle turn the kid normal? Or set up some other method to cleanse the child of the undead taint.

I guess it just seems like something so arbitrary could be solved in just as arbitrary of a manner.


Also, i probably treat detect evil differently than most DMs. Can't really describe it, but an NPC had to torture a few people under command of devils, had to torture and maim his companions to prove himself to the devils that invaded the city so that he could open a backdoor to the occupied city, and his actions allowed the PCs to save the entire humanity. He pinged evil for years after that, but he wasn't an evil person at all.That's a pretty major houserule.
And he certainly doesn't sound like a good person, either.
If he's pinging evil, but "isn't an evil person at all", I have to question what the purpose of "detect evil" becomes.


"Pity is destroying the world" is something the BBEG thinks (he also is an ex-paladin), and is very appopriate to the campaign actually. He's evil and his methods are questionable, but he's trying to save the world from the demon invasion nonetheless, just like the PCs. And in some ways he's probably right; you can't expect to win a thousand-years war without making some sacrifices.Why can't you win a war without making sacrifices? If the war requires you to commit terrible things to win it, maybe you shouldn't be trying to win the war. :smallconfused:
I'm serious. If it's a big demon war thingy, call on the good celestials. They should at least be able to evacuate people or something.
Unless the world's all "we only have evil outsiders!" or some such, which seems weirder. :smallconfused:


Well it'd take a few pages to explain the rogue AI, as the campaign has been going on for 10 years now.
Usually there are no set path. There's the situation, and how you deal with it. In this case i needed to have his powers removed for drama/story reasons, so he HAD to fall :)
But yes it was probably an easy choice....What was so important to remove? It's not like 3.5 Paladins are exactly paragons of raw power in...well, anything. Guess I'm not sure why it was so important to make him a highly-religious Warrior. :smallconfused:
Also, why couldn't he turn around and Atone ASAP?

Madeiner
2012-05-09, 05:02 PM
I think I'm just going to drop this one, because it feels like it gets too close to board rules.

If a "wizard did it", why can't a wizard un-do it, at least on the baby?
I mean, if it's not fully undead, why couldn't a limited wish, wish, miracle, or true miracle turn the kid normal? Or set up some other method to cleanse the child of the undead taint.


Well, the PCs didn't even try to. A wish would maybe have worked, but there wasn't anyone around powerful enough.
Besides, you can't assume anything you can do, you can undo.
You can probably take apart a car piece by piece. Can you rebuild it to a working state? No, it requires much more effort. A research would have been needed. I wasn't closing off any paths there, i just presented the situation, not pretending to decide what was right or wrong.



That's a pretty major houserule.
And he certainly doesn't sound like a good person, either.
If he's pinging evil, but "isn't an evil person at all", I have to question what the purpose of "detect evil" becomes.


I have cleared beforehand with my players that evil-ping and evil "sentiment" is not the same thing to me.
Besides, the NPC had a good sentiment. He HAD to torture people, tried to kill them as fast and with as less pain as he could. That was the only way he saw that could help to liberate the city. The party could have never done so without his aid (and of course, they were convinced he switched sides until the very end)
That's a houserule, yes. The point of it is that most things are no white or black, and not always things are what they seem.




Why can't you win a war without making sacrifices? If the war requires you to commit terrible things to win it, maybe you shouldn't be trying to win the war. :smallconfused:
I'm serious. If it's a big demon war thingy, call on the good celestials. They should at least be able to evacuate people or something.
Unless the world's all "we only have evil outsiders!" or some such, which seems weirder. :smallconfused:


A war is never without sacrifices. People are gonna suffer, die, starvate. Everyone will have to make sacrifices.
The BBEG thinks a more direct approach is better for everyone. Take corpses and reanimate them all. Trap their souls that cannot pass to the planes because of the demon disturbance and use those to create new warriors. Fight to the death no matter the cost. Then, once the world is rid of all evil, he will probably realize he his the ONLY major evil remaining...
I actually think maybe someday humanity and this BBEG can come to terms and aid one another to repel the invaders. Who knows.

The celestials cannot be called. Back in the last campaign thousand of years ago, the players died and lost some artifacts. Demons found them and opened a portal. Now, only the horde can reach the material plane. Everyone else is cut off or works strangely, summons included.



...What was so important to remove? It's not like 3.5 Paladins are exactly paragons of raw power in...well, anything. Guess I'm not sure why it was so important to make him a highly-religious Warrior. :smallconfused:
Also, why couldn't he turn around and Atone ASAP?

Well its a long story and i don't think you care, but:
Paladin of freedom is immune to any mind-affecting effects.
They ended up in a "dungeon" of sorts where the rogue AI subtly converts people by subtle mental control. Those it can't control, it kills.
The party had won a special mirror months before that, and it was predicted it would be useful when "all hope was lost".
The rogue AI (phi) didn't know what the mirror did. However, the rogue AI also didn't know there was another part of itself, Phi minor, that was working to overthrow it. Phi minor noticed that Phi couldn't control the paladin and was about to kill him; while studying the party, it discovered what the mirror did: if someone looked at the mirror under special conditions, he would find his true self again. Then, it calculated the best course of action was for the paladin to lose his powers, let him be enslaved with the others, then arrange an escape presenting the mirror at the right time and place, so that the party could destroy Phi.

Actually, Phi minor presented the party an UMD'ed atonement spell two sessions later, requiring nothing in exchange. The paladin reluctantly accepted (another self-created dilemma here), only because he needed those powers to save everyone in the dungeon. Then, he tried to surrender his powers again after he was done, saying he would have had to earn a true atonement. That act was enough for him to receive a godly "true" atonement and was thus blessed again.

hamishspence
2012-05-10, 12:47 PM
I have cleared beforehand with my players that evil-ping and evil "sentiment" is not the same thing to me.
Besides, the NPC had a good sentiment. He HAD to torture people, tried to kill them as fast and with as less pain as he could. That was the only way he saw that could help to liberate the city. The party could have never done so without his aid (and of course, they were convinced he switched sides until the very end)
That's a houserule, yes. The point of it is that most things are no white or black, and not always things are what they seem.

a case can be made that it's not so much a houserule as a "deeds-based" alignment interpretation - do enough evil deeds, no matter how Good the motive, and you change to Evil alignment while retaining most of your Good personality traits. The "Driven to Evil" archetype in Champions of Ruin is this.

Sutremaine
2012-05-10, 10:35 PM
http://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/06/21/thought-experiment/

I'm just gonna leave this here...
Oh cruel fate, that the brain in the jar is a brain is a jar and has no way of tossing a coin. Because that's what I'd do.

Man on Fire
2012-05-11, 07:46 PM
Oh cruel fate, that the brain in the jar is a brain is a jar and has no way of tossing a coin. Because that's what I'd do.

This one was hard enough when it was just one Joe and five strangers.


Okay, from me there is a part of idea I once saw. Not exactly what you're asking for, but it would fit the theme of questioning morality. Ask every player to write down three things his character belives in, in order from the one his belief into is strongest. Then design ecounters or events that would support one of those beliefs each. Then design ecounters or events that would question one of those beliefs each. Then work into mixing them into the adventures.

Now, some actual dillemas

1) Some dark forces, say undeads, are attacking the kingdom. Apparently they are summoned en-masse by device that belonged to powerful big evil, say, Lich (considering it's D&D I would recommend something that would always ping on "detect evil" spells), who was imprisoned thousands years ago and now apparently returned. Party goes to fight in his lair, gets into his cell...only to find him imprisoned and doing absolutely nothing evil. In fact, when talking with him, they quickly realize that he reformed - thousands of years were enough time for him to rethink hsi life hundred times and he had realized futility of his ways. Or so he says. He doesn't have the device anymore, but will tell the party how to identify it and turn it off if they free him.

2) Something taken out of an anime - two fighting fractions, one of them vastly more powerful than the other, but the other is wining thanks to their leader, who is military genius. But the thing is that their leader is really driven by personal obsession and desire for revenge on leader of other party, has been manipulating everybody and everything to achieve his goals - lying, brainwashing, murder, tortures, whatever it takes, including turning peace talks into massacre both sides blame each other - and has hidden powers he used to do so (lets say enemy party is lead by powerful wizard, then this party didn't managed to gain upper hand because their leader is just that good - he is wizard's former student, much lower level, but enough to block some of his former master's spells and additionally knows how his enemy thinks) without anyone noticing and used them to obscure hsi alignment. Make players join that side. Then make the enemy approach them and show them undeniable evidence of their leader's true nature. What will players do?

3) Lawful Evil villains set in world whose main problem is too much chaos are godo for that. BBEG wants to conquer all land because it's wasted hell where crazy maniacs rampage freely, raping, killing and eating (not necessairly in that order) whatever is too slow to get away from them. But he is going to do so by using army composed of even worse monsters only his iron fist keeps in line. If you really want to confuse players, make BBEG sympathetic and make him do some good things, like finding one of his men trying to rape innocent girl and slapping his head off in anger.

4) Throw party against their moral opposite - protectors of girl who is prophersized to be the Chosen One, who will defeat some terrible and dark evil. The problem is that her protectors are willing to commit every single possible atrocity to protect her - there is no deepth they won't sink into, no crime too heinous, no betrayal not worth it. They would make Sith Lord cry and yet they are the only ones who can protect future savior.

5) Throw party into besieged city, where they ends up as ones in charge. Siege prolongs, food is starting to end, different factions within the city soon start fighting each other, leader of militia or military goes mad and any attempt at leaving the city will end with being attacked by enemy, even teleportation. What will the party do Try to save everybody, try to save as many they can, try to find the way out, introduce rules of the iron fist before the chaos will erupt?

6) Simple one - evil guy who commited many atrocities but loves his daughter and cares for her and amoral man who will stop at nothing to get him, including kidnapping the girl and threatening to kill her. Evil guy wants the party to save his little girl, once they find the kidnapper, he will tell them exactly what bastard their boss is. Also, the girl did not belives a single word of his mouth - she claims it's all lies and papa would never do whatever the kidnapper is saying.

7) Party gets into the service of powerful noble, who they swear eternal loyalty. Then, when the war errupts, noble betrays the kingdom and allies with the enemy. Will party stay loyal to the kingdom but break their word or will they keep it, becoming traitors?

Dienekes
2012-05-11, 08:32 PM
A few ethical problems that might be interested (apologies if already presented but I only skimmed the rest of the thread)

Freedom/Safety: Where do you draw the line between one mans freedom and another safety? If someone's writings are directly endangering the safety of the realm should they be allowed to keep writing? Or even the simple ability to have weapons, is holding a sword to defend yourself endangering those around you, to the point where swords should be illegal for anyone who isn't part of the military?

Murder to save others: There's an old ethical debate of whether it's good to directly murder a handful of innocents to save a much larger population of the equally innocent. Or it doesn't even have to be larger if applied to the person in question directly. For an epic level quest, if saving your planet means destroying 2 others of similar size and general alignment would you do it to save your own skin?

Murder the Mind controlled: How much force are you will to apply to complete your quest against those who are good but turned against you by magic?

Good vs Disgusting: A culture has practices that your culture deems evil (but they are not necessarily harmful) such as cannibalism, or raising corpses, debt slavery, or whatever you think of. Will you accept their practices or try to stop them? What if the practice is harmful to a lower life form, like **** fighting? Will you try to stop it even if it costs you a necessary alliance, or something else that's useful?

Abortion: A player does something stupid and as a result a symbiote attaches to that player for months as it develops. A quick detect alignment would indicate that the creature is a forming consciousness that is not good or evil, but can be taught to be anything at all. However, allowing the symbiote to live will cause increasing stress and weakness until it eventually frees itself, and even then it could take months to fully recover. If getting rid of the creature is relatively easy, but would kill the creature would you take it?

Is Mind control torture?: Should a caster even be allowed to directly screw with someone else's mind, making them do something they never would, often at directly negative consequences to themselves? Is taking over someone's mind better or worse than outright killing them? What importance is free will? Or even stepping away from torture; there is a society of peace and prosperity that has grown larger and more prominent since the head wizard adopted a mind control policy to all the societies inhabitants. They are all, by definition, happier than they have ever been, safer then they have ever been, and more powerful than they have ever been, is this good or evil?

Good vs Useful: The kingdom is in turmoil and two figures are presented as possibly being able to take over and restore peace. One of these figures is an unquestionably good man, however his ideals will likely set the kingdom back several decades. His opponent is an indisputably evil man, willing to do whatever it takes to win. However it just so happens that he realizes what is best for the kingdom and will uses that knowledge once he gains control. Which would you support?

The Jean Valjean: A known, dangerous criminal has escaped from prison and you are sent to track him down. This man has done terrible, horrible things that are unspeakable and has been sentenced to life in prison. When you find him, you discover that he has honestly turned over a new leaf, but will not go back to face his punishment. Do you bring the good man to prison or let his crimes go unpunished?

The Javert: The opposite of the above, a good, just, honorable man believes your players have committed a terrible crime and the proof against your players is so iron clad that nothing you can do or say can dissuade him (or maybe your players actually are guilty). The man will follow your players to the ends of the earth to bring them to justice. He will be a constant thorn in your players side, but will also take time to help the innocent, and punish the wicked on the way. What will your players be willing to do to stop this honorable man? Would they kill him if it means making their lives easier?

The Samaritan's dilemma: Your players charitable actions have made a large part of the population directly dependent upon the charity given to them. They are a useless, lazy lot with no drive or ambition of their own. Will your players stop giving them charity? Even if this means that your players would also have to stop giving charity to those who actually do need it?

Note I'm not suggesting arguing these things, I think I'm ok just saying them as long as we don't go into a debate on them, as I'm certain some of these will get the thread closed.

Morithias
2012-05-11, 09:12 PM
Note I'm not suggesting arguing these things, I think I'm ok just saying them as long as we don't go into a debate on them, as I'm certain some of these will get the thread closed.

All good ideas. Very good indeed.

Yeah to be blunt I'm surprised this thread lasted as long as it did. I was expecting maybe 15 posts before a huge argument broke out and I lost it.

Thanks for the help everyone!

Sith_Happens
2012-05-12, 10:01 AM
2) Something taken out of an anime - two fighting fractions, one of them vastly more powerful than the other, but the other is wining thanks to their leader, who is military genius. But the thing is that their leader is really driven by personal obsession and desire for revenge on leader of other party, has been manipulating everybody and everything to achieve his goals - lying, brainwashing, murder, tortures, whatever it takes, including turning peace talks into massacre both sides blame each other - and has hidden powers he used to do so (lets say enemy party is lead by powerful wizard, then this party didn't managed to gain upper hand because their leader is just that good - he is wizard's former student, much lower level, but enough to block some of his former master's spells and additionally knows how his enemy thinks) without anyone noticing and used them to obscure hsi alignment. Make players join that side. Then make the enemy approach them and show them undeniable evidence of their leader's true nature. What will players do?

You left out the parts that actually make this a dilemma. Namely:
1. Other than the unsavory methods secretly used by its leader, the underdog faction is undoubtedly in the right, in terms of the basis of the conflict.
2. While said leader is primarily motivated by personal revenge, as mentioned, he also truly believes in the cause of the group he's using as his vehicle.



(Lelouch vi Britannia commands you...)

Man on Fire
2012-05-12, 12:43 PM
You left out the parts that actually make this a dilemma. Namely:
1. Other than the unsavory methods secretly used by its leader, the underdog faction is undoubtedly in the right, in terms of the basis of the conflict.
2. While said leader is primarily motivated by personal revenge, as mentioned, he also truly believes in the cause of the group he's using as his vehicle.



(Lelouch vi Britannia commands you...)

You're right, I ommited what adds more spice to the conflict. My bad.

(Yes, Your Highness!)

CoffeeIncluded
2012-05-12, 01:14 PM
Maybe you could play around with the Clone spell? I know that (unfortunately) the RAW says that the clone is an inert brain-dead piece of flesh until the original dies, but what if someone botched the spell and the clone ended up gaining sentience...?

hamishspence
2012-05-12, 02:16 PM
It happens in D&D fiction. In Faerun, a whole bunch of Manshoon clones woke up simultaneously when he was killed once. The resulting all-out-war was pretty dramatic- but three survived.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-12, 02:20 PM
Maybe you could play around with the Clone spell? I know that (unfortunately) the RAW says that the clone is an inert brain-dead piece of flesh until the original dies, but what if someone botched the spell and the clone ended up gaining sentience...?

Isn't there already a spell for that? A copy of you, but with only half your levels?

Of course, there's also Ice Assassin, but that's less ethically problematic, due to it's desire to kill.

Man on Fire
2012-05-12, 08:21 PM
Another one -how about introducing great, beautiful, smart, amazing man - paladin, general, warrior, master strategis and gentleman rolled into one. He seems to be able to easily end the demon threat and save entire plane.

He is also a powerful devil in disguise and only players knows about it. If they will allow him to save the world, he will steal device demons used and devils will take it over from shadows, slowly turning everything into hell on Earth where everybody's lives, deeds and even thougths are controlled by them. If they will stop him, plane sill be at the mercy of demons.

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-12, 08:25 PM
Another one -how about introducing great, beautiful, smart, amazing man - paladin, general, warrior, master strategis and gentleman rolled into one. He seems to be able to easily end the demon threat and save entire plane.

He is also a powerful devil in disguise and only players knows about it. If they will allow him to save the world, he will steal device demons used and devils will take it over from shadows, slowly turning everything into hell on Earth where everybody's lives, deeds and even thougths are controlled by them. If they will stop him, plane sill be at the mercy of demons.

Where's the debate in that? He's a bad guy, you stab him. There are more bad guys, you stab them too... I don't see a reason not to kill him. Maybe play him and kill him at his moment of triumph over some shared enemies. I know he'll do the same to me...

Morithias
2012-05-12, 08:50 PM
Where's the debate in that? He's a bad guy, you stab him. There are more bad guys, you stab them too... I don't see a reason not to kill him. Maybe play him and kill him at his moment of triumph over some shared enemies. I know he'll do the same to me...

Yeah and there's the whole "the party is travelling with the god of fiends" thing. Any devil or demon HAS to obey her, she's just that powerful. Of course she can't mind control them until step 4 or 5, but still, she is their god whether she likes it or not.

Rorrik
2012-05-13, 01:11 AM
I've gotten a lot of mileage out of the notion of conflicting allegiances. One of my players is currently in a solo campaign where he's been exiled from an evil nation he once served for political reasons (because he is evidence enough to bring the wrath of the neighboring nation down on them if they harbor him). He finds himself among the other exiles from the nation, who are very good people, and this is the reason for their exile. They receive him very well and he joins them against orc raids. Eventually, the neighboring nation tracks him down and invites him to meet with their leader of intelligence. He agrees, and finds he like them too. Once free of them, he meets a lich who was the ancient king of the orcs, who treats him well as well.

To make a long story short, or shorter, he's now aligned with his evil kingdom and the rising orc kingdom as well as the neighboring good kingdom and the exiles that the evil kingdom and the orcs plan to attack. Since all have given him motivation to help him, he is at an inpass, and continues to try to please all of them, even as orc/undead attacks are made on the exiles to extract him.

My other campaign revolves around this, where the players are given conflicting quests by a number of people and have to reconcile who to help and who to assassinate.

Another I've had fun with in the past is the use of mercenaries. They can be totally innocent, neutral, or even good. They're just working for the money and don'task many questions of the shady, distant mage who pays them handsomely to guard an abandoned city. The work's easy, pays well, and it's safe. Unfortunately, the PCs need to investigate that city and the not-so-evil mercenaries won't have it. Is it okay to kill them when they've given fair warning to stay away before attacking?

Man on Fire
2012-05-13, 10:39 AM
Where's the debate in that? He's a bad guy, you stab him. There are more bad guys, you stab them too... I don't see a reason not to kill him. Maybe play him and kill him at his moment of triumph over some shared enemies. I know he'll do the same to me...

the question is really if they can afford to stab him - can they really win without his help? And if they choose to play him, where is the point the price of victory won't be worth it anymore, or rather when to stab him fo it won't backfire. If they choose allying with him, it would be sort of like using poisonous snake in combat - you know it's a snake and you know it's going to bite you at some point, but can you really avoid getting bitten?


Yeah and there's the whole "the party is travelling with the god of fiends" thing. Any devil or demon HAS to obey her, she's just that powerful. Of course she can't mind control them until step 4 or 5, but still, she is their god whether she likes it or not.

In that case change the guy from devil to something else, I don't know, Mind Flyer or something like that.