Moral Dilemmas

[Arkusus]

I'm getting a campaign going, and the whole "Good vs Evil" thing is going to be a central force. I thought it might be intersting to periodically throw moral dilemmas at the players.

There are two kinds of moral dilemmas I'm interested in.

1: The no-right-choice dilemma, where something bad WILL happen, but they get to decide how it happens

2: The right choice that will hurt more people than the wrong choice.

An example for #1

A landslide is falling from a nearby mountain that will crash through the center part of the city, you can't stop it all, but you can slightly divert the landslide towards the east or west sides of the town where the slums and less-well-off reside. The center of the city holds all the government officials, and major marketplaces, but there are always more people in the slums.


An example for #2

Inside the city, a demon has just completed a ritual that will call fire down upon the same city, possibly killing hundreds, or at least dozens unless you can perform a counter-ritual that requires the unwilling sacrifice of an innocent.

I wanna know what you guys can come up with.

[Mystic Muse]

My first question would be is, is this the kind of thing your players find fun? A lot of players don't like no-win scenarios.

[Gray Mage]

Do you have any paladins in the party? If so, I strongly recommend against this sort of thing, unless it was discuted beforehand.

Also, keep in mind that depending on level and access to magic, #1 dilemmas might have a right solution.

[BowStreetRunner]

My first question would be is, is this the kind of thing your players find fun? A lot of players don't like no-win scenarios.
Springing a Kobayashi Maru test on players is probably one of the most common ways I've heard of for DMs to have the plot blow up in their faces. My recommendation is that you proceed with EXTREME CAUTION...

[Arkusus]

Haha, well then... Three cautionary statements...

Perhaps I should take that as a cue, hmm?

[ryu]

Like say for example one of the players has a sadistic streak and points out that a landslide that can't be traced to their actions opens a LOT of free loot up if they just let the center get hit.

Inaction is never good or evil by raw, so this is also the only way to conveniently come out neutral.

[Arkusus]

Like say for example one of the players has a sadistic streak and points out that a landslide that can't be traced to their actions opens a LOT of free loot up if they just let the center get hit.

Inaction is never good or evil by raw, so this is also the only way to conveniently come out neutral.

Haha, I don't think it counts as a moral dilemma if the character in question doesn't HAVE morals.

But yeah, in my setting, I would be completely okay with that result.

[ryu]

Sure they have morals. Their alignment is pragmatic neutral. They never actively hurt people, but they do look for the most optimal outcome possible.

[Arkusus]

Sure they have morals. Their alignment is pragmatic neutral. They never actively hurt people, but they do look for the most optimal outcome possible.

... Stealing is bad.

I tend to think this counts when looting the houses of the recently-dead. They might still have living relatives in the other parts of the city after all.


Not stopping the landslide though is neutral, as inactivity generally is.

[ryu]

Ah but stealing is called out as a neutral act unless stealing from people who need the goods to survive. These people are clearly already dead and thus it is merely chaotic even if you count it as stealing. Pragmatic neutral is the best alignment for games like these. I get to laugh at moral dilemmas AND look as morally justified as a world with no good choices allows while being a terrible person.

[Mystic Muse]

Ah but stealing is called out as a neutral act unless stealing from people who need the goods to survive. These people are clearly already dead and thus it is merely chaotic even if you count it as stealing. Pragmatic neutral is the best alignment for games like these. I get to laugh at moral dilemmas AND look as morally justified as a world with no good choices allows while being a terrible person.

This is the reason I don't run campaigns like these.:smalltongue:

[faircoin]

If you really want some intense moral dilemmas, look through the syllabus for any college ethics course.

[SiuiS]

Do you have any paladins in the party? If so, I strongly recommend against this sort of thing, unless it was discuted beforehand.

Also, keep in mind that depending on level and access to magic, #1 dilemmas might have a right solution.

Pretty much. Alternately, don't plan for but allow some super ****ing heroics. If the party paladin can get around this, LET THEM. If the party paladin ends up fighting the party to a brutal death, then let her be the innocent, and let them come back eventually with some bonus, the touch of heaven about them or something.

If you deal with a class whose description is "midieval superhero" let them so superhero stuff, like avert the unavertable. Kinda like if someone is a blackguard urpriest, they should be able to corrupt the incorruptible.

[ryu]

Moral ethics courses are tough dilemmas in real life yes. We don't have magic or people crazy or detached enough to pull off proper pragmatic neutral though.

[navar100]

If the only way to counter a demon ritual is to commit Evil, then there's no such thing as Good in the first place. Pelor is the Burning Hate. Zaphkiel is Asmodeous. That is not a moral dilemma. That's sadism.

[Arkusus]

Ah but stealing is called out as a neutral act unless stealing from people who need the goods to survive. These people are clearly already dead and thus it is merely chaotic even if you count it as stealing. Pragmatic neutral is the best alignment for games like these. I get to laugh at moral dilemmas AND look as morally justified as a world with no good choices allows while being a terrible person.

So, you're telling me that a Holy Liberator (Chaotic Good Paladin basically) could totally sneak into some rich guy's house and steal his jewelry case, his paintings, his wine, his toilet seat, his showerhead, his razor, and even his freakin bed, before slipping out the back (he had a portable hole), sell everything to a fence without ever upsetting his deity because nothing he took was "Required to survive"?

Honestly, by that logic the only thing you CAN'T take is a person's food, water and their house. And food only qualifies if they don't already have a bunch of other food. Seems a bit extreme to me to say that theft of all things, isn't evil.

[Arkusus]

If the only way to counter a demon ritual is to commit Evil, then there's no such thing as Good in the first place. Pelor is the Burning Hate. Zaphkiel is Asmodeous. That is not a moral dilemma. That's sadism.

It requires no evil to let the ritual take effect, inaction is neutral.

Inaction might make you a jerk too, but not evil.

The point of the dilemma is to make the players decide if it's worth DIRECTLY committing evil to prevent a greater evil that ISN'T their fault from taking place.

[ryu]

So, you're telling me that a Holy Liberator (Chaotic Good Paladin basically) could totally sneak into some rich guy's house and steal his jewelry case, his paintings, his wine, his toilet seat, his showerhead, his razor, and even his freakin bed, before slipping out the back (he had a portable hole), sell everything to a fence without ever upsetting his deity because nothing he took was "Required to survive"?

Honestly, by that logic the only thing you CAN'T take is a person's food, water and their house. And food only qualifies if they don't already have a bunch of other food. Seems a bit extreme to me to say that theft of all things, isn't evil.

Yep. RAW is funny like that. On the bright side you could make the argument he's going robin hood all over your game world. He's simply liberating those unnecessary goods and giving them to the poor, and well himself but still chaotic act with no bearing on the good/evil axis.

[Arkusus]

Pretty much. Alternately, don't plan for but allow some super ****ing heroics. If the party paladin can get around this, LET THEM. If the party paladin ends up fighting the party to a brutal death, then let her be the innocent, and let them come back eventually with some bonus, the touch of heaven about them or something.

If you deal with a class whose description is "midieval superhero" let them so superhero stuff, like avert the unavertable. Kinda like if someone is a blackguard urpriest, they should be able to corrupt the incorruptible.

Oh absolutely... One of the most haunting aspects of a moral dilemma is the nagging sensation that maybe... if you had thought about it a little bit more... Had tried a little harder... them maybe, just maybe you could have found a way around it.

Hard to get that feeling without pulling a few clever tricks to avert some other would-be dilemmas.

[Arkusus]

Yep. RAW is funny like that. On the bright side you could make the argument he's going robin hood all over your game world. He's simply liberating those unnecessary goods and giving them to the poor, and well himself but still chaotic act with no bearing on the good/evil axis.

Okay, I dug through the alignment axis in the PHB, and I don't see anything showing theft as not being evil. The specific description of good and evil don't mention theft specifically, but I think it's implied.

Also, I think the Robin Hood justification only applies when there's real oppression going on, and the poor masses CAN'T get the things they need. You can justify it by saying you're using theft to force a non-functional system to take care of it's population. Even then I think it's still very questionable, and must be considered very carefully.

Care to help me out here? A quote or a page number would be great...

[Segev]

Are you causing needless misery for your own selfish gain? Then you're being evil. Are you taking something that "they'll never miss?" Then you're merely being chaotic. Whether your motives are selfish or not will determine whether the act is chaotic good or chaotic neutral by nature, as repeated acts of selfishness will drive you more towards neutral. But if you're "Robin Hooding" the wealth, even if you keep some for yourself as well, you're probably "safe." (I will note that in real life, I would not argue this. But for the D&D alignment system and the genre conventions it seeks to promote, this is a decent starting point.)

[ryu]

Have you ever looked through complete scoundrel? I'm pretty sure the stuff related to exalted and the book of vile darkness also get more explicit.

[Arkusus]

Are you causing needless misery for your own selfish gain? Then you're being evil. Are you taking something that "they'll never miss?" Then you're merely being chaotic. Whether your motives are selfish or not will determine whether the act is chaotic good or chaotic neutral by nature, as repeated acts of selfishness will drive you more towards neutral. But if you're "Robin Hooding" the wealth, even if you keep some for yourself as well, you're probably "safe." (I will note that in real life, I would not argue this. But for the D&D alignment system and the genre conventions it seeks to promote, this is a decent starting point.)

Well how bout this, if the player uses divination to find out if the the subject of their impending theft will ever miss the stolen object, and the answer is no, then voila, it's chaotic neutral.

The simple fact is, you can't KNOW if theft will cause misery. That little broken clay figure in the window? Last birthday present from her father before he died when she was 8. Those few coins stuck between the mattresses? They were saving up for a surprise gift for their spouse, and had picked up a side-job playing music at a tavern for a few gold a night. That enchanted longsword displayed proudly in a case above the stairs? Cherished by their long-dead father, but little more than wall-clutter to the child, who never stops to look at it anymore.

If the player doesn't take steps to find out if the theft will cause misery, I think it's safe to say the player doesn't care. The intent is what matters, more than the end effect, and if the player didn't care, they were serving their own interests at the (potential) cost of the welfare of others. Good sacrifices for the benefit of others, evil helps themselves at the COST of others. Neutral tends to look out for themselves, but not at the expense of others.

Rouges who pick-pocket tend to be balanced out at neutral by the other things they do... Like stopping that necromancer at the local graveyard or what have-you. They do good things AND bad things, and thus sorta wind up between the two.

[Arkusus]

Have you ever looked through complete scoundrel? I'm pretty sure the stuff related to exalted and the book of vile darkness also get more explicit.

Good idea, I found this in the Book of Vile Deeds:


THEFT
Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong. Villains, however, often see theft as the best way to acquire what they want. Evil people pay only for things they cannot take. An evil character needs a reason not to steal. Fear of being caught is the most common deterrent, but sometimes a villain elects not to steal an item because he or she doesn’t want to incur the wrath of its owner. For example, a drow cleric might pay a rogue for a magic item. The cleric isn’t averse to stealing from the rogue, but she pays for the item so that the rogue will continue working for her.

[Segev]

Regarding actual moral dilemmas:

Don't set up "no-win" situations; not only do PCs have an annoying tendency to figure out "third options," but when they can't, the players tend to feel like the game's stacked against them and they just can't win. I know that almost sounds tautological, but it's an important thing to remember: players like to believe their actions matter. "You can either murder half the people or one third the people" doesn't count.

Instead, set up situations where innocents are in the way of the most expedient method of stopping evil. The bodyguard the evil sorcerer is using is the innocent farm-boy he kidnapped several levels ago; the boy's been forced into taking PC levels and is a respectably dangerous gish now, and all he has to do is delay the party long enough for his boss to complete his evil ritual and begin truly terrible deeds that will be all but impossible to stop.

The ancient demon is bound by a ritual that needs to be renewed each decade by the sacrifice of an innocent virgin. (Bonus points if the Paladin figures out he counts, so the "third option" might be a PC's self-sacrifice.)

The only ally the PCs have found against the dread necromancer who is slaughtering cities to raise as his ever-growing army of the undead (to conquer, raze, and slaughter more cities) is an aboleth who will provide aid to the PCs in the form of Enslaved minions, and clearly is willing to spend said minions' lives in cruel ways. But his alliance will give them far more of a fighting chance, and even a safe haven close to the Necromancer's base of operations (as the Aboleth is willing to ally because he can barely hold off the Necromancer's advance, so having the party will give him more margin for error).

The virgin sacrifice will actually empower the demon, releasing it into the world, and the Paladin is being held along with a backup virgin in case he manages to kill himself. She doesn't want to die, but suggests they simply make themselves both invalid targets for the sacrifice. This is, of course, only a dilemma if the Paladin in question has chastity vows, but...

[ryu]

Keep in mind book of vile deeds was explicitly written with the intent of setting as high a standard as possible to avoid going to hell by devils. This is why committing nine evil and nine lawful acts without repenting them is enough to get someone into hell by that books rules. This is also why I recommended more than one relevant source.

[Arkusus]

Keep in mind book of vile deeds was explicitly written with the intent of setting as high a standard as possible to avoid going to hell by devils. This is why committing nine evil and nine lawful acts without repenting them is enough to get someone into hell by that books rules. This is also why I recommended more than one relevant source.

Mkay, let's look in Complete Scoundrel page 17:


Weaknesses: The organization that supports you also restricts you. You must obey your superiors, both worldly and extraplanar. The good divine scoundrel in particular
faces a challenge, since you are tasked with performing deeds that fall outside the purview of your faith. In some cases, you must lie, steal, and even kill for the church, all of which probably violate your religion’s tenets. This creates a difficult position for you, one that requires frequent atonement.


The Book of Exalted Deeds has almost nothing to say on the subject of what is evil, and the word "Steal" "Stolen" "Thief" "Theft" and "Thievery" only show up a couple of times combined. In each case the actual word is used, it is either descriptive, or generally negative. The most relevant quote I found is this one, but it's fuzzy at best.

Book of Exalted Deeds page 119:


Whenever the cup and talisman are shown at the same time, all intelligent creatures viewing the artifacts must succeed on a DC 19 Will save or be overcome with greed and covetousness. Affected creatures attack the possessor in an attempt to steal the artifacts.

Like I said, not the best example, but it clearly pairs up stealing with greed and covetousness. You could argue that it's the attacking that's motivated by greed and covetousness, which is why I say it's not the best example, but I've already provided clear descriptions from the Book of Vile Darkness, and Complete Scoundrel, so... Yeah.

[ryu]

Don't churches also tend to be highly lawful organizations? Weren't the other two examples paired with stealing simple lying and cheating rather than actions which are more explicitly evil than simply against the rules?

[Ashtagon]

This is why I prefer Planescape's take on alignment.

Essentially, lawful/chaos is about whether you primarily work with or around the expectations and laws of society. Good/evil is about whether you primarily work to help yourself and your close friends, or whether you work to help society in general.

A "choose which part of society dies, where everyone is generally the same ethos and morality" scenario is essentially a neutral act (or neutral inaction if you do nothing) under these terms.

[Arkusus]

Don't churches also tend to be highly lawful organizations? Weren't the other two examples paired with stealing simple lying and cheating rather than actions which are more explicitly evil than simply against the rules?

There are plenty of chaotic good churches. The text said "Good" not "Lawful", so the thing that goes agasinst that is "Evil" not "Chaotic".

It also said "all of which probably violate your religion’s tenets." not "The first and last one are pretty bad, but the middle one can go either way".

Mind you, this is the book that promotes scoundrels and thiefs.

I should also point out, that almost every example of PCs stealing in the book involves stealing things BACK. As in, stealing things sure, but in order to return them to their rightful owners, from the people who stole it in the first place. In this context, I would say sure it's fine.

[navar100]

It requires no evil to let the ritual take effect, inaction is neutral.

Inaction might make you a jerk too, but not evil.

The point of the dilemma is to make the players decide if it's worth DIRECTLY committing evil to prevent a greater evil that ISN'T their fault from taking place.

Or you could just attack the demon and prevent him from completing his ritual.

If the PCs are incapable of doing even one hit point of damage to the demon, meaning their ONLY options are do nothing or commit Evil, then I will call it out - the DM is a Jerk.