Being forced to make tough decisions?

[gadren]

Just curious how different people feel about this:

How do you feel when you are playing a character, and the campaign/DM forces you to make ethically tough decisions? Like deciding what to do with a werewolf child, killing one innocent person to save ten innocent people, making a deal with a devil to save another's life, etc?

EDIT: I'm not talking about poorly-done contrived scenarios. I'm talking about things the legitimately make sense.

[awa]

depends if it feels contrived or not so often when dms do this they do it badly
either by railroading you into a problem where you have 3rd options but they just tell you no these don't work or alternatively the problem is convoluted and illogical and doesn't feel organic to the setting.

personally I've never seen it done well so I don't know what my opinion would be if I actually encountered it.

[Red Fel]

Pretty much what awa said.

I'm all for moral ambiguity and dilemmas, provided that you give the PCs the tools and freedom to address them. If the DM allows the players to explore their options, it's on the players how successful they are at dealing with difficult choices. If, on the other hand, the DM gives the PCs a binary lose-lose decision, and refuses to allow other options, it stinks on ice. It's fine for games that require constant difficult choices, but I don't generally play games like that - I play games that let me feel empowered, not cornered. If the DM gives a choice of two bad options, and bars any other options, it feels like he's trying to screw me over. It feels personal, and I don't enjoy it.

If you're going to give me a Kobayashi Maru test, you'd better allow me to use Kirk's solution, is what I'm saying.

[Strigon]

Ditto what they said, but plus one point:
In addition to the fact that they must allow room for alternative answers (or at least give a convincing reason why not: I.e; the bomb will go off in ten seconds, do you let it blow up the hundreds of people in the building or push it into the streets where there there are only a few dozen? You have ten seconds to decide.), there can't be a "right" and "wrong" choice; or at least, they shouldn't be arbitrary/based solely on the DM's moral decisions. Going back to the bomb example, if I decide that the people in the building might have a chance to escape the collapsing structure and is therefore better, I shouldn't be told that what I did was an evil decision. Likewise if I push it down.
Allow for realistic consequences - people calling you a monster, things like that, but not arbitrary decisions.

[gadren]

I made this thread reflecting upon a campaign I once played in, perhaps I should recount a summary:

Our group learned that a "gate" was slowly opening, and that when fully opened, a powerful demon lord would break through and turn the entire world into another Hell. As the gate drew nearer to opening, more and more demons made their way to the world, doing terrible things to a lot of innocent people.

In our quest to find this "gate" we met a young sorceress who had lost her family to the demons, and asked to help us on our quest. She was a genuinely good and selfless person who aided us whole-heartedly, but then we discovered that unbeknownst to her, she was, in fact, the gate. As she grew older and her sorcerous powers grew stronger, she weakened the division between the planes more and more, until one day her ancestor, the demon lord, would be able to break through.

If we killed her, the threat would have been ended immediately. But she herself had done nothing wrong, and in fact had spent most of her life as a force of good. Plus she had become our friend. So, we decided not to tell her what we had learned, and try to find a "Third Option" to stopping the apocalypse. As she grew stronger, however, more and more demons started to come through. Towns were razed, innocent people killed or worse.

Anyways, that's the sort of decision I'm talking about.

[Nifft]

EDIT: I'm not talking about poorly-done contrived scenarios. I'm talking about things the legitimately make sense.
It can be character-defining.

The times I like this: when it's one character's decision.

When it's a party-wide decision, things seem to go poorly, and too often there's acrimony.

[valadil]

I'm a fan. I think this is where the most interesting roleplaying happens. As a GM, I try to come up with decisions like this in two flavors.

One is to give a decision where a player would disagree with his character.

The other is to get the party to disagree. Not in an "oh my god you're wrong and I have to kill you now" kind of way, but the sort where they'll talk in character for several hours about this one problem. Usually I hit this by dropping the morality limbo bar until I find the point where the players won't do something. Then I raise it up a notch or two and watch them argue.

[awa]

I never actually played it but just glancing through a published conan adventure it looked like they did it a good way.

Basically the bad guys were getting ready to perform an evil ritual and depending on how well the party dealt with the bad guys determined how far along the ritual went. So worst case scenario the bad guy kidnaped the girl and got away on his demon mount. Each of these aspects you prevented reduced the bad guys ritual progress. The thing is killing the girl was vastly easier then rescuing her and hurt the bad guys more then rescuing her. Now as a single event this is nothing special but this was a campaign path with multiple girls getting grabbed for the ritual. If the party was doing poorly they would be seeing global effects from the ritual and interacting with them for a long time.

[Geddy2112]

I agree that the ham fisted lose-lose choices with no other alternatives that are forced on parties(and always seem to happen around Paladins and other alignment restricted classes) are totally garbage.

However, situations with tough choices and events that spark good ethics/morality debates and banter in the party are something I love to see;As both a player and a DM.

[Shadowsend]

I made this thread reflecting upon a campaign I once played in, perhaps I should recount a summary:

Our group learned that a "gate" was slowly opening, and that when fully opened, a powerful demon lord would break through and turn the entire world into another Hell. As the gate drew nearer to opening, more and more demons made their way to the world, doing terrible things to a lot of innocent people.

In our quest to find this "gate" we met a young sorceress who had lost her family to the demons, and asked to help us on our quest. She was a genuinely good and selfless person who aided us whole-heartedly, but then we discovered that unbeknownst to her, she was, in fact, the gate. As she grew older and her sorcerous powers grew stronger, she weakened the division between the planes more and more, until one day her ancestor, the demon lord, would be able to break through.

If we killed her, the threat would have been ended immediately. But she herself had done nothing wrong, and in fact had spent most of her life as a force of good. Plus she had become our friend. So, we decided not to tell her what we had learned, and try to find a "Third Option" to stopping the apocalypse. As she grew stronger, however, more and more demons started to come through. Towns were razed, innocent people killed or worse.

Anyways, that's the sort of decision I'm talking about.

This makes no sense, and is totally DM fiat (no other sorcerer's power causes the entire cosmos to fail), and the deities whose planes are being destroyed would find the source and deal with it probably personally (especially the warlike ones), removing the requirement of the PCs to choose.

[gadren]

This makes no sense, and is totally DM fiat (no other sorcerer's power causes the entire cosmos to fail) It wasn't because she was a sorcerous, she was a sorcerous as a secondary effect of the fact that she was born to be his portal. Not everything that happens in the game has to follow some written rule exactly.

and the deities whose planes are being destroyed would find the source and deal with it probably personally (especially the warlike ones), removing the requirement of the PCs to choose. You could claim that for any campaign where the party is trying to stop the end of the world. Hell, look at OotS.

At any rate, I don't really know where it would've gone either way, campaign came to a halt when the DM had a kid.

[Fri]

That scenario is actually pretty good. You can be a "hero" with pstd by killing the sorceress, or a Hero by stopping the demon lord itself.

If it's me, or any other "main character" in an idealistic story, the third option that I pursue would be finding a way to incurse into the demon realm and kill the demon lord before he got the chance to come to material realm.

[NichG]

In my current campaign, players can gain boons by inviting future disasters (players play kings and deities ruling over countries). One player received the disaster that a portion of their country's population developed extremely powerful but hard to control mutant superpowers. The mutants fell into all sorts of different categories - those who wanted to get rid of their powers, those who wanted to get into control, those who became opposed to the current social order and wanted to use their abilities to change it, those who joined up with hostile organizations to try to take over the country/world/etc, and so on.

The player tried a number of strategies, and was making some progress with the portion of the mutants who wanted to get rid of their powers or control them, but the hostile ones were becoming an increasingly big threat and in a serious way (it didn't help that the player's country was literally a flying continent with engines that could be sabotaged to bring the whole thing down).

So eventually the player decided 'you know what, screw it, I'm going to engineer a disease that kills all mutants, then engineer a source of immunity that also suppresses the mutant's powers'

This was a pretty controversial choice, especially when the hostile mutants stole the disease research and tried to make a less selective version (cue a race to find and eradicate the mutant's secret base before they finished their version of the virus). Definitely a tough decision for the player, but nowhere along the line did I say anything like 'so, you can either give the mutants control of your senate, or engineer a genocidal virus'. It was only meaningfully tough because it was so open. The player had a lot of tools - all sorts of futuristic tech, the ability to spontaneously invent new technologies, allies with magical powers, etc, etc - along with a fairly tense situation. The difficulty came from the player having to decide which tools to use how to resolve the problem, combined with the fact that there were going to be a small number of hard-liners in the mutant population who could easily do disproportionately large amounts of damage at a whim.

Of course, I suppose its also possible that the player just thought that genocidal viruses are cool, and it wasn't a hard decision for them at all.

[The Grue]

As a GM, I enjoy inflicting this on my players. I'm fond of the trolley problem in particular, since the choice is between a bad outcome for which you're responsible or a worse one for which you're blameless (with the possibility of a third option, which I sometimes like to build into the framing of the particular problem). Matter of fact I'm writing an antagonist for my EP group whose grand scheme amounts, in essence, to the trolley problem.

As a player, I agree with what others have said; I enjoy it so long as it doesn't feel contrived.

[goto124]

That scenario is actually pretty good. You can be a "hero" with ptsd by killing the sorceress, or a Hero by stopping the demon lord itself.

This ethical dilemma is a good one, because both choices are equally valid (and not in the sense of 'you're wrong for choosing A, and you're also wrong for choosing B). What affects the choice can also be based on the situation. As in 'was it reasonable to expect to even have the ability to kill the demon lord?'. If it's a high-power 'heroic' game, it's likely a 'yes'. If it's a low-power, gritty, high-lethality game, it's probably a 'no'.

The trolley problem is one example. Though, what should the DM do if some players say 'don't pull the lever', the other players say 'pull the level', and they seem to get into lots of heated arguments without drawing any conclusions?

To be honest, I prefer it if the GM didn't do it on purpose. It can happen all on its own.

[The Grue]

The trolley problem is one example. Though, what should the DM do if some players say 'don't pull the lever', the other players say 'pull the level', and they seem to get into lots of heated arguments without drawing any conclusions?

In my case, what I do is sit back and periodically call out how many feet of track are left before the switch junction. :smallbiggrin:

[hymer]

In my case, what I do is sit back and periodically call out how many feet of track are left before the switch junction. :smallbiggrin:

As long as you would be willing to accept it if someone comes up with a feasible third option, I see no problems with this. In fact, setting up situations where most people would get railroaded, but PCs have capabilities that can avoid this, helps showcase that they are special individuals.

[goto124]

Oh, right. Time limits. Always important.

Has there been a situation where that did not help? I find that deliberately creating such tension (especially if you forced the group to make a decision half of the players do not agree with) doesn't sound so, er, good.

[hymer]

Oh, right. Time limits. Always important.

Has there been a situation where that did not help? I find that deliberately creating such tension (especially if you forced the group to make a decision half of the players do not agree with) doesn't sound so, er, good.

I was a player once in a session, where we found an orb of fire in a volcano that was turning active. The question was whether to bring it along or leave it in the volcano. We spent close to a RL hour arguing, as we moved away from predictably rising lave with the orb. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the DM's fault. I don't think it was meant as a dilemma, even. It was just two people with strong opinions (and I was one of them).

[ReaderAt2046]

I made this thread reflecting upon a campaign I once played in, perhaps I should recount a summary:

Our group learned that a "gate" was slowly opening, and that when fully opened, a powerful demon lord would break through and turn the entire world into another Hell. As the gate drew nearer to opening, more and more demons made their way to the world, doing terrible things to a lot of innocent people.

In our quest to find this "gate" we met a young sorceress who had lost her family to the demons, and asked to help us on our quest. She was a genuinely good and selfless person who aided us whole-heartedly, but then we discovered that unbeknownst to her, she was, in fact, the gate. As she grew older and her sorcerous powers grew stronger, she weakened the division between the planes more and more, until one day her ancestor, the demon lord, would be able to break through.

If we killed her, the threat would have been ended immediately. But she herself had done nothing wrong, and in fact had spent most of her life as a force of good. Plus she had become our friend. So, we decided not to tell her what we had learned, and try to find a "Third Option" to stopping the apocalypse. As she grew stronger, however, more and more demons started to come through. Towns were razed, innocent people killed or worse.

Anyways, that's the sort of decision I'm talking about.

Now that's a example of a really good moral dilemma. Kudos to your DM!

[Sith_Happens]

EDIT: I'm not talking about poorly-done contrived scenarios. I'm talking about things the legitimately make sense.

In that case,

http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2014/12/28/635553846898300025628996100_tumblr-m3fbwmdvqm1qeyp1lo5-250.gif


[Snip]

Anyways, that's the sort of decision I'm talking about.

Now that scenario right there is a heck of a good one. What if any solution there might be besides killing the sorceress is completely open-ended, the question is how long are you willing to take to find it... and once you do, was it worth all the pain and horror you could have prevented?:smallamused:


I was a player once in a session, where we found an orb of fire in a volcano that was turning active. The question was whether to bring it along or leave it in the volcano. We spent close to a RL hour arguing, as we moved away from predictably rising lave with the orb. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the DM's fault. I don't think it was meant as a dilemma, even. It was just two people with strong opinions (and I was one of them).

I'm confused, if there was actually a reason to not take the orb you forgot to mention it.:smallconfused:

[hymer]

I'm confused, if there was actually a reason to not take the orb you forgot to mention it.:smallconfused:

I was the one wanting to bring the orb along, so I remember that part best. :smallsmile: But the details are rather besides the point, which was merely to confirm that time limits don't always solve the problem of dilemmas turning into overly long discussions.

[Darth Ultron]

I love tough decisions, they are what makes the game.



However, I can't stand the kind of homebrew ruled thing your DM did with the ''gate girl''. Sure, it sounds great for a story....but it is nothing but a problem for an RPG with set rules.

[Fri]

I love tough decisions, they are what makes the game.



However, I can't stand the kind of homebrew ruled thing your DM did with the ''gate girl''. Sure, it sounds great for a story....but it is nothing but a problem for an RPG with set rules.

What are you talking about? It's not valid because it's not set in the rule of (in this particular case I assume) DnD 3.5?

Epic magic. There. I'm sure one of you guys optimizer can create an epic magic to make this scenario happen. Now it's in the realm of DnD Rule.

[Darth Ultron]

What are you talking about? It's not valid because it's not set in the rule of (in this particular case I assume) DnD 3.5?

Epic magic. There. I'm sure one of you guys optimizer can create an epic magic to make this scenario happen. Now it's in the realm of DnD Rule.

Make an epic level spell that puts a gate inside a person that slowly opens and gets more powerful as they go up levels? Ok, bit of a stretch, but lets say you can do it with epic magic. It is epic magic. The PC's can't do anything vs. that unless it is an Epic Level game.

[gadren]

Make an epic level spell that puts a gate inside a person that slowly opens and gets more powerful as they go up levels? Ok, bit of a stretch, but lets say you can do it with epic magic. It is epic magic. The PC's can't do anything vs. that unless it is an Epic Level game.

We're getting a bit off topic here. But if you insist that the DM only use things word-for-word out of the books, I think you are missing out on the main advantage of a pen and paper game, and are better off playing a computer RPG.

[Jay R]

Just curious how different people feel about this:

How do you feel when you are playing a character, and the campaign/DM forces you to make ethically tough decisions?

I feel like the real game just started, and we aren't just playing 'manipulate the rules to win fights' any more.

[NichG]

Make an epic level spell that puts a gate inside a person that slowly opens and gets more powerful as they go up levels? Ok, bit of a stretch, but lets say you can do it with epic magic. It is epic magic. The PC's can't do anything vs. that unless it is an Epic Level game.

That doesn't follow. The PCs can't do anything versus that using a single ability on their character sheet and a single declared action. But that doesn't mean they can't do things about it, it just means that doing things about it isn't an atomic 'move' one makes at the level that the PCs are at.

At epic level, this kind of thing is an atomic action - something you throw out there like 'I hit him with a club' or 'I cast Heal'. Its like a single move in a swordfight - it might be a cool move, but it isn't what the fight is about, just one piece of it. The consequence of that is, its not really suitable for being a 'tough' decision at that point. At some point, whether you kill 1 person or let 100 die becomes a non-event, because you can just kill the one guy and then drop a Shapechange-into-Solar Quickened-via-feat SLA Resurrection onto him. Its not a tough decision, its just a standard move in the game.

At lower levels, things that would be atomic actions in the epic conflict become session-spanning or campaign-spanning situations. They can still be dealt with, but they can't be dealt with by the toolkit that the average party has pre-assembled and ready to go. The epic character could just pull an answer out of their pack, but the lower level characters have to go in search of ways to assemble the answer, and maybe end up being unable to come up with an answer that is perfect in every way. That's where the tension comes from - situations where what you have isn't up to dealing with it, but it might be up to getting you something that will help you deal with it.

[Knaight]

I'm going to jump in with the group as a whole here, and say that I'm all for this sort of thing as long as it isn't totally contrived, and the example with the living gate is a pretty good one. With that said, it often isn't some huge deal - there are lots of little decisions that come up in a game that can be pretty tough. For instance, in one game I'm running one of the enemies that some of the PCs have is a man out to avenge the death of his father, which was at the hands of one of the PCs. He's also generally a good person, and one with the resources to actually do real good in the world.

More than that though, the guy is a side character at most, and not the only side character which prompts decisions like this.

[Strigon]

I was the one wanting to bring the orb along, so I remember that part best. :smallsmile: But the details are rather besides the point, which was merely to confirm that time limits don't always solve the problem of dilemmas turning into overly long discussions.

They do if you do them properly; I suggest an OOC time limit, to mimic the lack of time your characters have to think.

[hymer]

They do if you do them properly; I suggest an OOC time limit, to mimic the lack of time your characters have to think.

I think you'll tend to potentially get one of two problems: There's enough time that the debate gets annoyingly long. Or there's insufficient time to explore the issue properly.

[Beleriphon]

I think the best example I can think of is in Dragon Age: Inquisition. At a certain point you are given a choice of letting a group of mercenaries retreat, or make them stay put. Either choice has a major and significant impact on one of your companions and the over all story of the game. Either choice is completely valid. I personally let them retreat because I liked the characters and couldn't let them die, but at the same time that choice torpedoed an alliance that would have been beneficial.

[Sith_Happens]

I was the one wanting to bring the orb along, so I remember that part best. :smallsmile: But the details are rather besides the point, which was merely to confirm that time limits don't always solve the problem of dilemmas turning into overly long discussions.

"What reason could the other person have had for not taking the orb" isn't just a detail, it's the reason the argument happened in the first place. Unless you're implying that it's possible for a PC to be against taking shiny things on general principle.:smalltongue:

[dps]

Now that's a example of a really good moral dilemma. Kudos to your DM!

I don't really see much of a dilemma--tell her the truth. She deserves to know, and if she's all that powerful, maybe she'll be able to come up with a way to stop the demon.

[hymer]

"What reason could the other person have had for not taking the orb" isn't just a detail, it's the reason the argument happened in the first place. Unless you're implying that it's possible for a PC to be against taking shiny things on general principle.:smalltongue:

Very well, but this is fifteen-twenty years ago or so. As far as I recall, the orb had been used to cause a great fire previously by the fire-elementalists who inhabited the volcano (and whose fiery behinds we had just kicked, prompting their lair to do the super villain thing - albeit slowly). The other guy believed the orb was an evil tool, possibly intelligent, and best left behind. My character knew the orb was evil and intelligent (as he was to some degree himself), but also felt quite confident that he could control it - and that the group ought to trust his judgment. And he'd rather throw the thing in the deepest sea than leave it in the volcano if it became necessary to give up on it. I recall he had to discipline the orb by throwing it in a river for about a quarter of an hour at one point, but once we made it back to the coast, the orb didn't get uppity again.
That was a fun campaign, thanks for reminding me! :smallbiggrin:

[Strigon]

I don't really see much of a dilemma--tell her the truth. She deserves to know, and if she's all that powerful, maybe she'll be able to come up with a way to stop the demon.

I think the dilemma was more about whether or not they should kill her.
Telling her the truth doesn't help all that much, and while she's coming up with this plan, more people are dying.

Also,

I think you'll tend to potentially get one of two problems: There's enough time that the debate gets annoyingly long. Or there's insufficient time to explore the issue properly.
Part of the reason there is a time limit is so that you don't get to fully explore the issue. If you're the type of player who would enjoy such dilemmas, I'd wager you'd also be able to appreciate having to make imperfect choices due to lack of time.
One way or another, it'll be exhilarating and memorable, as opposed to frustrating and drawn out.

[goto124]

To be honest, the idea of being forced to make a tough decision makes me wonder why the GM is doing this to me.

[Lorsa]

When I GM, I rarely need to force my players to make tough decisions, they come by tough decisions all on their own. All I need to do is to uphold some verisimilitude (like monsters have babies, bandits surrender before dying, evil overlords mind control regular people into committing evil acts).

As a player, I really enjoy moral dilemmas. Especially as you get to explore the tough decision(TM) through the eyes of your character. Being able to make such decisions in a manner that consistently portrays the persona you created is yet another challenge.

I don't see why a GM would force a tough decision(TM) on a group of players, especially by only admitting two outcomes. Just play the world and they will happen by themselves.

For example, before I moved city, I was GMing a game in World of Darkness where the group played four college girls that happened to be introduced to the supernatural world and tried to fight back. They had to make all sorts of hard choices. During one adventure, they found out that a sorority house had a ghost in it which "bullied" the sisters to sacrificing a pledge to it every year, and the safest way to get rid of the ghost was to burn down the house. But how to do that safely without accidentally killing one of the sorority sisters?

I think that at least every other adventure featured some difficult moral choice they had to make, and watching them struggling with it was very enjoyable to me as a GM. Worth noting however, is that most of these choices came out of previous (non- moral) choices by the players. Where they looked for information on how to destroy a ghost impacted the information they got that burning the house down was the way to go. Had they looked elsewhere, they might have had other means at their disposal.

[Madeiner]

Heh, i centered a campaign around tough decisions.
It's the main staple of our current world: the heroes have to take tough choices in order to do good.
Most of the times, the choice is between the lesser of two evils, or any outcome is a grim, albeit a different, one.

The first defining things i said to my players when describing the campaign was "if things can go wrong, they will".
It is a dark, evil world that we are playing in, and fate is definately against you.

Random/Interesting choice PCs had to make:

- an evil couple was brutally executed while the girl was pregnant. A curse was put on the couple, and they continued on as undead. Their child was eventually born, also an undead, and also radiating an evil aura. The child has done nothing wrong, and you cannot say if he ever will, however he can hurt people by crying, similar to a banshee.

What to the PCs do?
IMC, they decided to kill the parents (they were murderous bastards, but loved their son, and had to eat human flesh to survive) but spared the child.
Going with "if things can go wrong, they will", 15 years later the child has become the BBEG apprentice, and is causing all manner of evils and the same PCs now are trying to put him down.

This particular piece of story took off well with the players, who spent an entire session debating whether to kill the child or not.

Many tough choices or events like these exist: one PC knows that one day he will have to kill his lover or the human race will be doomed. (hint: his lover is the living planet's human incarnation). Another was tricked into killing his newly discovered mother by the aformentioned undead child (now a teenager).
Another recently had to decide which (if any) of three beloved NPCs resurrect, knowing that whoever he brings back, will be fated to accomplish a great deed for the good of the world, but then suffer for eternity.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think I sorta agree that the gate girl dilemma is a bit ham fisted, and that would affect my enjoyment. As said previously, if I cannot at least TRY to Kirk myself out of a situation (referring to the Kobayshi Maru), then I'm probably going to get a little bored and not enjoy the situation fully. A good DM would be able to pull it off and I would certainly enjoy the ride if the game was good enough, don't get me wrong. Just would be something not to my preference that would rub me the wrong way constantly.

Also, I feel that if a DM introduces one like this (that isn't unavoidable, such as surrendering enemies or bad people using cocerion) in an unstable group of players, I might get pissed off. I had a DM give us an artifact of great evil and power that you guessed it, needed to be destroyed to save the world. The group had a lot of different ideas about how to go everything. This didn't end well. If you know that the players are having issues seeing eye to eye, please don't do this. That's not really the time to do it, and neither is the start of the adventure when no one knows each other's name.

[Nightcanon]

This makes no sense, and is totally DM fiat (no other sorcerer's power causes the entire cosmos to fail), and the deities whose planes are being destroyed would find the source and deal with it probably personally (especially the warlike ones), removing the requirement of the PCs to choose.

I think that's quite a neat idea, provided the sorceror is an NPC (obviously, DM fiat saying suicide your PC or destroy the world is a bit much). I have to say, if the PC is Good, my initial reaction is to tell her what I've discovered, and try to persuade her to retire ('I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galdriel'), if it's her levelling up that widens the gate.

In general I'm okay with the principle, provided there's not an 'answer in the teacher's head' or refusal to consider ideas that the DM hasn't considered.

[Nightcanon]

As a GM, I enjoy inflicting this on my players. I'm fond of the trolley problem in particular, since the choice is between a bad outcome for which you're responsible or a worse one for which you're blameless (with the possibility of a third option, which I sometimes like to build into the framing of the particular problem). Matter of fact I'm writing an antagonist for my EP group whose grand scheme amounts, in essence, to the trolley problem.

As a player, I agree with what others have said; I enjoy it so long as it doesn't feel contrived.

As a player in a heroic fantasy type game, I'm gonna be cheesed off if I don't have a 3rd option of having my fighter stop the trolley with brute strength/ my wizard turn it into a pile of soft chicken feathers/ my druid turn himself into a dire elephant and sit in the way/ my thief rescue any and all pedestrians in the area with a combination of tumbling, and sleight of hand. I'm sure you're not talking literally of the trolley problem, but my point about allowing characters to use their powers to invent a third option had to be allowed IMHO.

[BWR]

They can be done well, the can be done poorly. They are appropriate for some games, they are not appropriate for others.
That's about all I can say about 'tough decisions'.

[DigoDragon]

If it's a decently good one, I can stand doing it once. Just once though. Those kind of tough decisions can get very divisive in a party, and if everyone has to agree on the decision, it can lead to some hurt party camaraderie. More than once, then it just starts causing too much drama and the chances of the decision going bad increase.

There was one adventure where we almost got to one of those situations twice. First time it was about whether a specific golem was considered a 'person'. We agreed to argue in the golem's behalf to let it live on because it was benevolent. The trouble was how passionate one PC became and it caused a good deal of drama/argument because the NPC we were arguing against was going to get creamed for just doing their job. Annoyance came because the second time it came up, it was a different 'entity' that was more gray and it possibly had hostages. To avoid the drama I simply shut up about my opinion, even though the decision the group came to wasn't one I'd of picked.

So yeah. Once per campaign is my opinion.

[Keltest]

Im not opposed to this sort of dilemma myself, but it needs to be rather carefully thought out. There should be at least one solution available that the players could reasonably come up with (they don't have to, but it should exist) where they try to get away with as happy an ending as possible, but the chances of failure are much greater.

[Telok]

Some players, when faced with a dilemma will say "Yay! Roleplaying!" while others will spit and whine because they just want to play tabletop MortalKombat. As a DM you must judge your players carefully, some types enjoy it and others hate it. I've learned that most of my group can't handle any sort of investigation of fact finding. Any.

Personally I like the roleplaying of it. My decision will depend on the character I'm playing though. Some of my characters are moralistic agonizers, others will find a third option, and some will kill them all and let the gods sort it out.

[CombatBunny]

Moral dilemas?

That’s what the games I run are all about :-3 The only way that you can prove that you are a true hero, is when you keep your beliefs despite the hard choices that you have to make.


When I GM, I rarely need to force my players to make tough decisions, they come by tough decisions all on their own. All I need to do is to uphold some verisimilitude (like monsters have babies, bandits surrender before dying, evil overlords mind control regular people into committing evil acts).

This is exactly how I handle moral dilemmas at my table. They shouldn’t always be situations of “Do or die” (in fact, those should be handled carefully as others have mentioned); you can have dilemmas of all kinds of levels, to constantly pit the characters against their beliefs without turning your table into a constant and annoying halt.

A moral dilemma can be as easy as: “A mother dressed in rags and carrying a child sells you a potion at a very good price (with little effort the PCs realize that it is robbed)”. If you want to raise the challenge, you can have that same mother return to the PCs in a constant basis, selling them other goods.

The moral dilemma shouldn’t be the end of the world, nor should it represent a dire punishment if they don’t follow what the GM considers morally right. I used them just as a lab to see PCs reactions and realize how much they will keep or deviate from their original character concept, given the right circumstances.

I had a PC whose goal was to capture the killers of his wife and avengance her, no matter what. I made his killers easy to track and catch, but I also left some clues to make this PC learn a little bit about his wife’s killers. What happened is that their killers’ village was also ransacked and destroyed by an enemy army and they were taken prisoners. When they arrived at the PC’s village, they were forced to burn it down and kill his wife. Now they live as beggars, hiding on the filthiest places of the city and surviving with whatever they can snatch.

I also had an evil NPC disguised as a friend, to constantly spur the PC with things like “With all respect, I don’t actually thing that you feel that sorry for losing your wife”, “It’s easy to talk when you don’t have the murders right in front of you”, etc.

Finally, I decided that if the PC took too long to find the killers or simply didn’t show any interest at all (which he didn’t), the “Evil NPC” would catch them and would present them to him all gagged and bound, with fear and tears in their eyes.

“Come on, this is what you wanted, right?” “What are you waiting for? Remember your wife” “I knew it, you are a coward” “Do you want me to do for your wife what you don’t dare to do yourself?”

As you can see, I didn’t planned any bad/good outcome for this situation, and choosing one or the other didn’t meant the end of the world, nor would I reserve any punishment if the character acted in any way, as I didn’t planned how this situation was meant to be solved. I just like to make the ball roll and let the PCs do the rest.

But yes, you have to improvise and keep things moving in case that the players start to argue with each other and things stop being fun. In the case of the murders, if all the party was at the scene and they were arguing on what to do, I’d probably have stated that the murderers where so bruised and beaten up, that they had just expired. Then I would have done my best effort to make the NPC look as evil and despiteful as possible (maybe laughing of all of the party), to give them a common enemy, make them join forces and feel good for defeating such an undesirable NPC.

[Amphetryon]

I made this thread reflecting upon a campaign I once played in, perhaps I should recount a summary:

Our group learned that a "gate" was slowly opening, and that when fully opened, a powerful demon lord would break through and turn the entire world into another Hell. As the gate drew nearer to opening, more and more demons made their way to the world, doing terrible things to a lot of innocent people.

In our quest to find this "gate" we met a young sorceress who had lost her family to the demons, and asked to help us on our quest. She was a genuinely good and selfless person who aided us whole-heartedly, but then we discovered that unbeknownst to her, she was, in fact, the gate. As she grew older and her sorcerous powers grew stronger, she weakened the division between the planes more and more, until one day her ancestor, the demon lord, would be able to break through.

If we killed her, the threat would have been ended immediately. But she herself had done nothing wrong, and in fact had spent most of her life as a force of good. Plus she had become our friend. So, we decided not to tell her what we had learned, and try to find a "Third Option" to stopping the apocalypse. As she grew stronger, however, more and more demons started to come through. Towns were razed, innocent people killed or worse.

Anyways, that's the sort of decision I'm talking about.And. . . folks find this to be a good, acceptable, enjoyable scenario for RP? Wow. That's a vastly different experience than what I'm familiar with.

[Sith_Happens]

And. . . folks find this to be a good, acceptable, enjoyable scenario for RP? Wow. That's a vastly different experience than what I'm familiar with.

Um, yes? The threat is dire enough that something has to be done about it, but also gradual and indirect enough that the PCs don't feel unduly pressured to take the easy way out and just kill her.

Unless you're saying the premise itself is contrived, in which case, it's really not that far out there as far as "entire world at stake" plot devices go.

[Amphetryon]

Um, yes? The threat is dire enough that something has to be done about it, but also gradual and indirect enough that the PCs don't feel unduly pressured to take the easy way out and just kill her.

Unless you're saying the premise itself is contrived, in which case, it's really not that far out there as far as "entire world at stake" plot devices go.

From my perspective, the premise is "There are two options. Both of them are filled with nothing but bad results, and any 3rd option is likely to have similarly horrible consequences, since the GM has set up a scenario where the PCs are not allowed to have a satisfying victory. Alternately, it's possible the 3rd option exists, if you can guess what the GM is thinking without him giving any clues (in the info we're provided thus far). Good luck."

Scenarios where the PCs can only lose, regardless of the choice they make, do not result in satisfied PCs in my experience.

[Hiro Protagonest]

We're getting a bit off topic here. But if you insist that the DM only use things word-for-word out of the books, I think you are missing out on the main advantage of a pen and paper game, and are better off playing a computer RPG.

Sir. Sir, you can't just do whatever you want, there are RULES! Do you think this just takes place in your IMAGINATION?!

[Hawkstar]

Um, yes? The threat is dire enough that something has to be done about it, but also gradual and indirect enough that the PCs don't feel unduly pressured to take the easy way out and just kill her.

Actually, the pressure to just take the easy way out and kill her is what makes it a moral dilemma - Every moment she lives, more demons are coming.

[Keltest]

From my perspective, the premise is "There are two options. Both of them are filled with nothing but bad results, and any 3rd option is likely to have similarly horrible consequences, since the GM has set up a scenario where the PCs are not allowed to have a satisfying victory. Alternately, it's possible the 3rd option exists, if you can guess what the GM is thinking without him giving any clues (in the info we're provided thus far). Good luck."

Scenarios where the PCs can only lose, regardless of the choice they make, do not result in satisfied PCs in my experience.

Two options? While there was mention of seeking a "third option", I only saw one solution proposed that would actually address the problem: Killing the girl. Presumably, the DM intended for there to be another one if this was actually a deliberate moral choice on their part, unless theyre counting "let the demons kill everyone and do nothing" as a real choice?

[Sith_Happens]

Actually, the pressure to just take the easy way out and kill her is what makes it a moral dilemma - Every moment she lives, more demons are coming.

Well yes, what I meant is that the rate at which the demons are coming is presumably below the point of downright screaming "KILL HER, KILL HER NOW."

[NichG]

From my perspective, the premise is "There are two options. Both of them are filled with nothing but bad results, and any 3rd option is likely to have similarly horrible consequences, since the GM has set up a scenario where the PCs are not allowed to have a satisfying victory. Alternately, it's possible the 3rd option exists, if you can guess what the GM is thinking without him giving any clues (in the info we're provided thus far). Good luck."

Scenarios where the PCs can only lose, regardless of the choice they make, do not result in satisfied PCs in my experience.

I dunno, to me it looks like something with dozens of potential options. What happens if the sorceress herself goes to the Abyss (or other planes)? What happens in an antimagic field? Can you defeat the demons? Can you transfer the sorcererss' soul or mind to another body that doesn't have the gate problem? Can you negotiate with the demons, possibly making a deal that transfers to gate to someone evil they control in order to free the sorceress of her burden (and then go kill that guy)? Can you set up a kill zone so that even if they come through, its not a problem to deal with them (or even its a benefit, providing a ready source of demons to be bound into servitude)? Does the fact that the sorceress is a high-value piece in the demons' game allow you to turn the dilemma back on them, and use her as a sort of untouchable gamepiece in your own plans to conquer a layer of the Abyss?

It has the potential to be great fun.

[veti]

Story from an AD&D campaign:

We were a low-level (level 2-3? as far as I can recall) party, who encountered a large troop of refugees from a town that had been razed by some eldritch force (the details of which were vague even at the time and have since faded completely from my memory). They were making for the nearest city, which was a couple of days' trudge away. It was near the end of the day, so we guided them into a convenient abandoned - monastery, I think it was - for shelter overnight.

Overnight, several of the refugees started coming down with an alarming plague. I (as the party's senior cleric) tried to isolate them and treat them as best I could (i.e. hardly at all), but every hour or so, more people would start showing symptoms. There was simply no effective way of separating the infected from the healthy.

Next morning, those refugees who were still up and ready to walk - were all for proceeding post-haste to the safety of the big city. But what would happen if this plague, whatever it was, started spreading there? So I told them - forcefully - to stay right where they were, and I'd send a message to try to get a higher-level cleric out here to help them. But since I'd done pretty much nothing for them so far, they weren't inclined to take my word as any kind of authority.

They didn't want to stay there. I couldn't blame them, but I also couldn't just let them carry their infection into the city.

What would you do?

[Madeiner]

Story from an AD&D campaign:

We were a low-level (level 2-3? as far as I can recall) party, who encountered a large troop of refugees from a town that had been razed by some eldritch force (the details of which were vague even at the time and have since faded completely from my memory). They were making for the nearest city, which was a couple of days' trudge away. It was near the end of the day, so we guided them into a convenient abandoned - monastery, I think it was - for shelter overnight.

Overnight, several of the refugees started coming down with an alarming plague. I (as the party's senior cleric) tried to isolate them and treat them as best I could (i.e. hardly at all), but every hour or so, more people would start showing symptoms. There was simply no effective way of separating the infected from the healthy.

Next morning, those refugees who were still up and ready to walk - were all for proceeding post-haste to the safety of the big city. But what would happen if this plague, whatever it was, started spreading there? So I told them - forcefully - to stay right where they were, and I'd send a message to try to get a higher-level cleric out here to help them. But since I'd done pretty much nothing for them so far, they weren't inclined to take my word as any kind of authority.

They didn't want to stay there. I couldn't blame them, but I also couldn't just let them carry their infection into the city.

What would you do?

This city must be purged, Uther! Its the only right thing to do!

[DigoDragon]

Huh... found my character in a bit of a tough decision as of last night.
The group had arrived at a supply stop in hopes of buying more food for the long trip ahead. Instead, all the supplies are ruined, there is a disease lingering about, and the entire population was slaughtered except for one sole survivor. This survivor is scared out of his wits and in a bit of shock because he's seen things. As the party doctor (as opposed to the party doctor?), I want to take him to a nearby hospital (we have enough food to make it there) where I can work with another doctor and figure out what this disease is (and whether any of us have caught it for being in a contaminated place).

The problem is that the survivor had freaked out when a killer robot came to collect us (this robot may explain the fate of the others that once lived here). The party defeated the robot, but during the fight our survivor freaked out and attempted to grab a shotgun for reasons he has not yet stated (he barely talks and mostly mumbles about how this supply depot is hell/death. A few teammates tied up the survivor in case he planned on shooting us. Reasonable precaution.

So! Thus far the doctor (my character) thinks our survivor is simply still suffering shock and made a poor decision with fear by grabbing the shotgun. Three members of the party think we should leave him behind. I think he should come along (I've attempted to compromise by allowing the survivor to remain tied up). But what if the doctor is the only one that thinks we should bring the survivor? Does he resign to the majority and leave this lone scared person by himself within this contaminated place? He'll definitely die without food and clean water. Probably die faster if another killer robot shows up.

We don't know if he's normally a good or bad person. We only know that right now he's a quivering mass of fear and needs help soon. His life is ours to decide right now, and we have to decide now because another killer robot could be on its way. We barely survived the first attack.

[Mr.Moron]

They can be interesting I guess. Some of my players once spent literally an entire session debating if to help someone escape from a brutal police state, in the middle of a mission that required them to spend an significant amount of time traveling through said police state and being subject to inspections.

I honestly hadn't intended it to be a huge dilemma and was going to make the request relatively easy to complete. However I'd perhaps done too good a job of playing up how brutal and efficient said police state was and the group just couldn't justify the risks of taking him, nor the injustice of leaving him. Ultimately after 4 hours of what was basically IC debate and the group no closer to settled on a plan of action, the NPC said "Look guys it's been hours, I'm out way past curfew and if they find me I'm toast, I need to know?" to which they only responded with more debate so he thanked them and tried to slink back to his family.

A few open air dice rolls later... and the NPC is promptly caught and summarily executed by the city guards on the street beneath their window (he seriously botched his stealth rolls).

It was compelling stuff that changed the way the PCs handled their actions for the rest of that story. It still stands out as one of the biggest moments of the campaign so far and it enhanced that game.

All that said, it can get draining if done too much. As both I player and GM I usually like things to be more straightforward. The world is complex and harsh enough as-is, and most of the time I'd rather just get to spend my fantasy time with good guys doing good things that are good for good reasons.

[hymer]

What would you do?

Most of my PCs would advocate someone going ahead of the fugitives to the big city and warn them (carrying as many details as possible about the disease, and aware that they may indeed carry the very thing itself - so send a smart, charismatic person who can get through both recalcitrance and bureaucracy as it arises) and get instructions. That's the main priority - do what little you can here and now and get the experts on it. Oh, and for many characters, covering your butt by warning the authorities is also important. And since the fugitives no longer do what you need them to do, keep them out of the loop, and plan what to do with the people you trust (likely the other PCs). You want the fugitives relatively collected for easier containment. If they knew they'd not be allowed into the city, they might start scattering.
Finally, there's no guarantee this disease is all that deadly. So someone should stay and tend the stricken ones. And someone needs to go with the ones staggering on, to make sure people they meet are warned against the danger.

Even evil PCs of mine would likely do something of the sort, as long as this is their country, or they know someone in the city. The chaotics would be the ones the most in doubt, but seeing how the infected people do not take responsibility for the danger they pose, containing the spread takes precedence.

[Mr.Moron]

Most of my PCs would advocate someone going ahead of the fugitives to the big city and warn them (carrying as many details as possible about the disease, and aware that they may indeed carry the very thing itself - so send a smart, charismatic person who can get through both recalcitrance and bureaucracy as it arises) and get instructions. That's the main priority. And since the fugitives no longer do what you need them to do, keep them out of the loop, and plan what to do with the people you trust (likely the other PCs). You want the fugitives relatively collected for easier containment. If they knew they'd not be allowed into the city, they might start scattering.
Finally, there's no guarantee this disease is all that deadly. So someone should stay and tend the stricken ones. And someone needs to go with the ones staggering on, to make sure people they meet are warned against the danger.

This is goes for me too. The priority is too keep as many people as safe as possible for as long as possible. This the best way to keep them out of the city without having to harm them.

[DigoDragon]

This is goes for me too. The priority is too keep as many people as safe as possible for as long as possible.

This line of thinking is why I believe that in my dilemma's case, we're going to decide on leaving the survivor behind. There are no assurances on the content of his character.

[Hawkstar]

Huh... found my character in a bit of a tough decision as of last night.
The group had arrived at a supply stop in hopes of buying more food for the long trip ahead. Instead, all the supplies are ruined, there is a disease lingering about, and the entire population was slaughtered except for one sole survivor. This survivor is scared out of his wits and in a bit of shock because he's seen things. As the party doctor (as opposed to the party doctor?), I want to take him to a nearby hospital (we have enough food to make it there) where I can work with another doctor and figure out what this disease is (and whether any of us have caught it for being in a contaminated place).

The problem is that the survivor had freaked out when a killer robot came to collect us (this robot may explain the fate of the others that once lived here). The party defeated the robot, but during the fight our survivor freaked out and attempted to grab a shotgun for reasons he has not yet stated (he barely talks and mostly mumbles about how this supply depot is hell/death. A few teammates tied up the survivor in case he planned on shooting us. Reasonable precaution.

So! Thus far the doctor (my character) thinks our survivor is simply still suffering shock and made a poor decision with fear by grabbing the shotgun. Three members of the party think we should leave him behind. I think he should come along (I've attempted to compromise by allowing the survivor to remain tied up). But what if the doctor is the only one that thinks we should bring the survivor? Does he resign to the majority and leave this lone scared person by himself within this contaminated place? He'll definitely die without food and clean water. Probably die faster if another killer robot shows up.

We don't know if he's normally a good or bad person. We only know that right now he's a quivering mass of fear and needs help soon. His life is ours to decide right now, and we have to decide now because another killer robot could be on its way. We barely survived the first attack.
You are a pony. What kind of pony leaves those in need to die?

[DigoDragon]

You are a pony. What kind of pony leaves those in need to die?

My character wouldn't, as he is a very kind pony. However, there is a fair argument made that we do not know if the survivor is a morally good or bad 'person'. My character could be wrong and this survivor is actually a cowardly thief not adverse to looting us in the middle of the night and running off with our food and guns. On the other hand (hoof?) this survivor could be of decent character and just needs some kindness to get over the shock of being the sole survivor of a robot's slaughter. An event like that sounds pretty traumatizing to me.

We just don't know this survivor very well. Hence, my character is trying to make a compromise-- we bring the survivor along, but keep him bound so that he can't grab a gun and shoot us with it.

[Hawkstar]

My character wouldn't, as he is a very kind pony. However, there is a fair argument made that we do not know if the survivor is a morally good or bad 'person'. My character could be wrong and this survivor is actually a cowardly thief not adverse to looting us in the middle of the night and running off with our food and guns. On the other hand (hoof?) this survivor could be of decent character and just needs some kindness to get over the shock of being the sole survivor of a robot's slaughter. An event like that sounds pretty traumatizing to me.
No, there isn't a fair argument to be made - even if he's currently a morally bad person, you can make him a morally good person through the powers of generosity, loyalty, kindness, laughter, honesty, and magic/friendship.

[DigoDragon]

No, there isn't a fair argument to be made - even if he's currently a morally bad person, you can make him a morally good person through the powers of generosity, loyalty, kindness, laughter, honesty, and magic/friendship.

I don't think the GM is running that kind of game. :smallbiggrin:
And even then, I think only two PCs out of the group would fit into a friendship category. :3

[Sith_Happens]

What would you do?

Threaten to treat any unauthorized attempts by the refugees to reach the city as attempted mass murder (even if it's a bluff), then make sure to beat them there by a good margin if the threat doesn't take.


Huh... found my character in a bit of a tough decision as of last night.
The group had arrived at a supply stop in hopes of buying more food for the long trip ahead. Instead, all the supplies are ruined, there is a disease lingering about, and the entire population was slaughtered except for one sole survivor. This survivor is scared out of his wits and in a bit of shock because he's seen things. As the party doctor (as opposed to the party doctor?), I want to take him to a nearby hospital (we have enough food to make it there) where I can work with another doctor and figure out what this disease is (and whether any of us have caught it for being in a contaminated place).

The problem is that the survivor had freaked out when a killer robot came to collect us (this robot may explain the fate of the others that once lived here). The party defeated the robot, but during the fight our survivor freaked out and attempted to grab a shotgun for reasons he has not yet stated (he barely talks and mostly mumbles about how this supply depot is hell/death. A few teammates tied up the survivor in case he planned on shooting us. Reasonable precaution.

So! Thus far the doctor (my character) thinks our survivor is simply still suffering shock and made a poor decision with fear by grabbing the shotgun. Three members of the party think we should leave him behind. I think he should come along (I've attempted to compromise by allowing the survivor to remain tied up). But what if the doctor is the only one that thinks we should bring the survivor? Does he resign to the majority and leave this lone scared person by himself within this contaminated place? He'll definitely die without food and clean water. Probably die faster if another killer robot shows up.

We don't know if he's normally a good or bad person. We only know that right now he's a quivering mass of fear and needs help soon. His life is ours to decide right now, and we have to decide now because another killer robot could be on its way. We barely survived the first attack.

This doesn't seem very dilemma-y to me. Just take the guy with you and don't let him out of your sight. If all the PCs are asleep at night at the same time in the wasteland they deserve to get their throats slit anyways, regardless of whether it's by roaming bandits that happen to find them there or a shell-shocked survivor they decided to help.

[DigoDragon]

This doesn't seem very dilemma-y to me. Just take the guy with you and don't let him out of your sight.

Part of the dilemma is that some characters want to leave the survivor behind. The 'dilemma' then is in the perspective of the character(s) that want to bring the survivor along, but are the minority with that decision.


One main component with tough decisions in general is that when you have a group, you can often be faced with differing opinions on what action to take.

[Sith_Happens]

Part of the dilemma is that some characters want to leave the survivor behind. The 'dilemma' then is in the perspective of the character(s) that want to bring the survivor along, but are the minority with that decision.

...Remind them that they'd only need to deal with the survivor until Doc first has to make a Medicine roll on him for any reason?:smalltongue:

[goto124]

Well, looks like all the PCs have agreed to tie the survivor up and take him along! :smallbiggrin:

[DigoDragon]

...Remind them that they'd only need to deal with the survivor until Doc first has to make a Medicine roll on him for any reason?:smalltongue:

Ha! You wound me... but maybe no where near the damage Doc inflicts. He has gotten better about that. XD



Well, looks like all the PCs have agreed to tie the survivor up and take him along! :smallbiggrin:

I am quite happy (and a little surprised) the compromised agreement was accepted quickly. Though it does mean he's going to be luggage for the entire trip and a bit after that.

[goto124]

Party cohesion!

Considering how long that F:E campaign has gone on, has you come across other (moral) dilemmas in that game? Especially with the wasteland we-don't-have-much-resources-to-waste thing going on.

Or another game?

[DigoDragon]

Considering how long that F:E campaign has gone on, has you come across other (moral) dilemmas in that game? Especially with the wasteland we-don't-have-much-resources-to-waste thing going on.

Well there was the whole situation with Special Snowflake after our first fight with her. We disabled her, but argued if she should be taken into custody or killed. Snowflake kept pirates away, so killing her meant we had to find a sub to protect the town. Letting her live meant that those loyal to her could gang together and try to take us out. It was a messy situation where the core question was whether we let a dictator live because that dictator kept stability in the area.



Or another game?

I'm in another game where an argument broke out about whether a creature was a living intelligent entity or just a mass of spells and illusions that simulated intelligence. It was not resolved and I've grown seriously bored with playing in that campaign.

[goto124]

I recall Special Snowflake (http://orig14.deviantart.net/0a69/f/2015/183/9/5/fun_fun_fun_by_foxinshadow-d8zmyz3.png)* being splattered over the wagon back in Oakville. Was that one resolved by killing her somehow?

* Does she actually use that as her public name?

[DigoDragon]

I seem to recall Special Snowflake* being splattered over the back of a wagon. Or something? How was that one resolved?

Resolved when Snowflake turned herself into some kind of demon and attacked us for a second time.



* Does she actually use that as her public name?

Apparently yes.

[goto124]

Resolved when Snowflake turned herself into some kind of demon and attacked us for a second time.

Nice! I'm glad the GM was thoughtful and knew the players well, instead of trying to force the 'interesting moral dilemma'. (Also, I think Snowflake's action is called a Backstab Backfire, bascially 'Defeated villain tries to strike back at the victor. It doesn't work.')

Debate And Switch can help greatly when the party is stuck, or if the players feel they've been unfairly forced into a 'choose the lesser evil' situation. But how (often) should it be done?


A work of fiction sets up a moral dilemma or other painful choice, then finds a way to resolve it without actually addressing the issue it raised.

Say, Alice is seriously ill and Bob is considering robbing a local pharmacy to get the medicine she desperately needs. Then he wins the money he needs in the lottery, meaning that he (and the writers) never have to come down on the question of whether theft is acceptable for a good cause.

This trope is used for a number of reasons. It allows the show to resolve the tension without (1) giving an unrealistically clear-cut or Anvilicious solution to an ambiguous problem or (2) alienating the half of the audience who would disapprove of the resolution if the characters did make the hard choice.

[Number 2 is the main reason we're using it here. Here, the auidence are the ones making the hard decision for the characters.]

[snip]

Usually, a Debate and Switch is pulled in one of the following ways:

The antagonist is originally set up as doing something that falls in the moral (and legal) gray area, then jumps off the slippery slope or is revealed to be a Straw Hypocrite.

Related to the above, if one party turns out to be partnered with or working for any kind Villain by Default.

The evidence points to the antagonist having committed a crime over the issue under discussion, then new evidence is uncovered that shows that the motive was actually more clear-cut.

The protagonists are put into the morally gray situation, then Take a Third Option. [In a tabletop, this will depend on the players figuring it out, or the GM pointing it out.]

The protagonists are put into the morally gray situation, then another consideration makes it much more black-and-white. The decision is made on that consideration, with the original considerations becoming moot. No Third Option necessary, just a Second Question.

Before a decision can be made, outside events render it moot, such as a suspect dying in an accident while the antagonists are debating their guilt.

[DigoDragon]

Debate And Switch can help greatly when the party is stuck, or if the players feel they've been unfairly forced into a 'choose the lesser evil' situation. But how (often) should it be done?


A work of fiction sets up a moral dilemma or other painful choice, then finds a way to resolve it without actually addressing the issue it raised.

Say, Alice is seriously ill and Bob is considering robbing a local pharmacy to get the medicine she desperately needs. Then he wins the money he needs in the lottery, meaning that he (and the writers) never have to come down on the question of whether theft is acceptable for a good cause.

This trope is used for a number of reasons. It allows the show to resolve the tension without (1) giving an unrealistically clear-cut or Anvilicious solution to an ambiguous problem or (2) alienating the half of the audience who would disapprove of the resolution if the characters did make the hard choice.

[Number 2 is the main reason we're using it here. Here, the auidence are the ones making the hard decision for the characters.]

[snip]

Usually, a Debate and Switch is pulled in one of the following ways:

The antagonist is originally set up as doing something that falls in the moral (and legal) gray area, then jumps off the slippery slope or is revealed to be a Straw Hypocrite.

Related to the above, if one party turns out to be partnered with or working for any kind Villain by Default.

The evidence points to the antagonist having committed a crime over the issue under discussion, then new evidence is uncovered that shows that the motive was actually more clear-cut.

The protagonists are put into the morally gray situation, then Take a Third Option. [In a tabletop, this will depend on the players figuring it out, or the GM pointing it out.]

The protagonists are put into the morally gray situation, then another consideration makes it much more black-and-white. The decision is made on that consideration, with the original considerations becoming moot. No Third Option necessary, just a Second Question.

Before a decision can be made, outside events render it moot, such as a suspect dying in an accident while the antagonists are debating their guilt.



I don't know how often it can be done, but as GM I try to have such an option on the backburner if I plan a moral choice and it looks like it isn't going to work out. Sort of like a button I can use to abort moral choice.

[goto124]

Interesting choice of words.

To be fair, 'how often' doesn't really work when the GM shouldn't plan more than one (or some other small natural number) moral dilemma. Heck, it's best if the GM doesn't plan for them at all, instead including them only because it makes sense in the world. For example, if a dictator was completely evil and makes evil choices even when they aren't beneficial, why is she still a dictator? It makes sense that she does something useful, even if her methods aren't the Goodest.

If a GM sees a potential moral dilemma for something included only as part of the plot/verisimilitude/notforthesakeofmoralchoices, it would be best to have a backup switch. In case it turns out the players aren't too interested in that sort of morality thing.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm in another game where an argument broke out about whether a creature was a living intelligent entity or just a mass of spells and illusions that simulated intelligence. It was not resolved and I've grown seriously bored with playing in that campaign.

Ah, the ol' philosophical zombie. Every once in a while an argument breaks out in the 3.5 sub forum over whether it's Evil to abuse a Simulacrum.

[DigoDragon]

Interesting choice of words.

I... really shouldn't proofread while I'm distracted with other things.



If a GM sees a potential moral dilemma for something included only as part of the plot/verisimilitude/notforthesakeofmoralchoices, it would be best to have a backup switch. In case it turns out the players aren't too interested in that sort of morality thing.

Right. Have a plan to open up an alternate path for players if the original idea is failing to work. And if I am planning a moral choice, it's never for the sake of it, but because it was part of the story from the get-go. And fairly, I rarely do that be cause I don't like too many of them from the other side of the screen. Also, I forgot to eat lunch today. Oops.



Ah, the ol' philosophical zombie. Every once in a while an argument breaks out in the 3.5 sub forum over whether it's Evil to abuse a Simulacrum.

Huh, I don't know that any player of mine has ever made one... maybe I dodged the bullet there.

[kyoryu]

I feel like the real game just started, and we aren't just playing 'manipulate the rules to win fights' any more.

This.

One of the reasons I like Fate is that the limited supply of Fate Points mean you get these decisions (albeit at a lower level and less artificially) *all the time*.

"Huh, so the UN troops that we don't really trust and that seem really trigger happy want to imprison the local sheriff. That seems like a bad idea. So, just *how important is it* to prevent this? Am I willing to spend all my Fate Points to prevent him from being imprisoned?"

[Sith_Happens]

"Huh, so the UN troops that we don't really trust and that seem really trigger happy want to imprison the local sheriff. That seems like a bad idea. So, just *how important is it* to prevent this? Am I willing to spend all my Fate Points to prevent him from being imprisoned?"

Don't forget the flip side: "Is it worth earning a fate point to just let it slide?"

And people say that metagaming is bad.:smallamused:

[Amphetryon]

I dunno, to me it looks like something with dozens of potential options. What happens if the sorceress herself goes to the Abyss (or other planes)? What happens in an antimagic field? Can you defeat the demons? Can you transfer the sorcererss' soul or mind to another body that doesn't have the gate problem? Can you negotiate with the demons, possibly making a deal that transfers to gate to someone evil they control in order to free the sorceress of her burden (and then go kill that guy)? Can you set up a kill zone so that even if they come through, its not a problem to deal with them (or even its a benefit, providing a ready source of demons to be bound into servitude)? Does the fact that the sorceress is a high-value piece in the demons' game allow you to turn the dilemma back on them, and use her as a sort of untouchable gamepiece in your own plans to conquer a layer of the Abyss?

It has the potential to be great fun.

I saw nothing in the scenario that indicated that the position of her physical body within the multiverse was any sort of factor in the gate opening to allow the Demon Lord to access the gate to the Players' native plane. If you could highlight the portion where the GM in question expounded on those options, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, my default assumption is either that only her living or dying has any impact on the gate's opening, or that the GM in question is a poor communicator who intended all those other options to be viable without giving any hint that they were, in fact, relevant details (also known as the Gygaxian staple "guess what the GM is thinking").

[veti]

I don't believe in "planning" moral choices. All you have to do is make sure your world is more complex than a computer RPG, and they'll arise naturally.

In the above example with the plaguey refugees, I don't really think the DM particularly set out to give me a moral dilemma. He just set up a situation and played it through. Making a moral choice out of it was, pretty much, all my own doing, because that was the way I wanted to play my character.

[NichG]

I saw nothing in the scenario that indicated that the position of her physical body within the multiverse was any sort of factor in the gate opening to allow the Demon Lord to access the gate to the Players' native plane. If you could highlight the portion where the GM in question expounded on those options, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, my default assumption is either that only her living or dying has any impact on the gate's opening, or that the GM in question is a poor communicator who intended all those other options to be viable without giving any hint that they were, in fact, relevant details (also known as the Gygaxian staple "guess what the GM is thinking").

IMO, its not the GM's job to expound upon those options, and doing so actually makes the entire exercise somewhat pointless. The thing that makes it have the potential to be interesting is that it's open-ended.

You can assume that only things explicitly given to you are viable courses of action, but that's a self-imposed limitation, not one created by the GM. You can assume that the GM will shut down anything that he didn't think of ahead of time, but that's an assumption you're bringing to the table rather than something the GM has already done here. And when you don't like the options you're given, its an unproductive assumption because it leads you to accepting an outcome that you don't like, rather than trying to find a better one. Even if its impossible to find a better one, you aren't going to be worse off for looking.

[GungHo]

I think it's great and a hallmark of great drama.

I also think it can be abused to the point of being silly. In which case, it sucks and I lose my interest.

[Quertus]

Our group learned that a "gate" was slowly opening, and that when fully opened, a powerful demon lord would break through and turn the entire world into another Hell. As the gate drew nearer to opening, more and more demons made their way to the world, doing terrible things to a lot of innocent people.

In our quest to find this "gate" we met a young sorceress who had lost her family to the demons, and asked to help us on our quest. She was a genuinely good and selfless person who aided us whole-heartedly, but then we discovered that unbeknownst to her, she was, in fact, the gate. As she grew older and her sorcerous powers grew stronger, she weakened the division between the planes more and more, until one day her ancestor, the demon lord, would be able to break through.

If we killed her, the threat would have been ended immediately. But she herself had done nothing wrong, and in fact had spent most of her life as a force of good. Plus she had become our friend. So, we decided not to tell her what we had learned, and try to find a "Third Option" to stopping the apocalypse. As she grew stronger, however, more and more demons started to come through. Towns were razed, innocent people killed or worse.


So, ignoring the fact that I recognize this plot (which biases me to this particular dilemma), I would say the following:

In general, I love moral dilemmas. I love running different characters who would make different choices (and, thus, obviously, different choices than I would).

However...

The way the choice is presented - and handled - matters.

Your title asks about being forced to make a tough decision. I love being given the opportunity to make tough decisions (although many of my characters may not).

Many of the posters are concerned that you have been presented with a false dichotomy - kill the sorceress, or allow the demon to break free.

If the DM cannot give good reasons why alternate solutions do not work (she counts as an artifact, and thus her magic gate status is unaffected by antimagic zone; the gate status is tied to her soul, not her body, so any mind-transfer / kill-and-resurrect schemes fail; etc), but instead just heavy-handedly crams the two choices down your throat, then you have every right to be upset :( >:-( !!!

Of course, this assumes your characters find the tools to find the answers to why your efforts aren't working (or finds the tools to analyze the problem before trying these alternate solutions, depending). If what you try isn't working, and you just assume it's because the DM is railroading, that doesn't count. Have you tried to find someone to test the sorceress's condition to see exactly *how* the gate is constructed, so you can devise a way to dismantle it? Or tried to find stackable items of "+50 Disable Device", to munchkin up that 1000 roll on Disable Device necessary to "disable living artifact gate"? :P

Or, heck,
As she grew older and her sorcerous powers grew stronger have you tried to level drain and youthen the sorceress?

Sometimes, the nuke is inbound, and you're just out of options - you have to make the sacrifice play. But the rest of the time, as in this case, you've got time to cut the wire (or shoot the hostage, or whatever the current meme for creative solutions is). Does your party have a Tony Stark to come up with creative solutions? How has the DM handled it in the past?

And how, exactly, did you learn that the sorceress is the gate (without the sorceress, who is traveling with you) come to the same conclusion?

Whether all of this is believable (and whether the party can handle a moral dilemma without OOC tension) would determine whether this would, for me, be an enjoyable experience.

[DigoDragon]

Or, heck, have you tried to level drain and youthen the sorceress?

So what would happen if the party took her into Hell? Would that create a recursive portal? A twist in space-time that would cause a collapse of the connection?
That might be my 3rd option. :3

[Sith_Happens]

So what would happen if the party took her into Hell? Would that create a recursive portal? A twist in space-time that would cause a collapse of the connection?
That might be my 3rd option. :3

The fourth option, of course, being to reverse the polarity of her neutron flow.:smallwink::smalltongue:

[hymer]

The fourth option, of course, being to reverse the polarity of her neutron flow.:smallwink::smalltongue:

Sorry, Captain, she's surrounded by a dense tetryon field. We cannot initialize the plasma stream inside the field! I'll try to work around it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Make her fall in love with Kirk. That tends to get her off the show in an episode or two. Then it's someone else's problem!

[TheIronGolem]

Many of the posters are concerned that you have been presented with a false dichotomy - kill the sorceress, or allow the demon to break free.

If the DM cannot give good reasons why alternate solutions do not work (she counts as an artifact, and thus her magic gate status is unaffected by antimagic zone; the gate status is tied to her soul, not her body, so any mind-transfer / kill-and-resurrect schemes fail; etc), but instead just heavy-handedly crams the two choices down your throat, then you have every right to be upset :( >:-( !!!


It's also important to note that it's still cheap if you come up with these reasons why "third options" won't work specifically for the purpose of keeping your Tough Moral DecisionTM intact. And it's especially cheap if you do so on the fly in response to a player's idea: "OK, we stick the sorceress in an antimagic field!" "Oh, um, that doesn't work, because...uh...she...counts as an artifact! Yeah, that's the ticket!"


I don't believe in "planning" moral choices. All you have to do is make sure your world is more complex than a computer RPG, and they'll arise naturally.


Well put.

[Frozen_Feet]

Anyone interested in the topic should consider such terms as Zugzwang, Seki, Morton's Fork, Catch 22 and Lose - Lose.

In any sufficiently complex multiplayer game where any conflict of interest is present (the basest form of this is two players playing against each other, but it happens in supposedly fully co-operative games as well), situations will naturally emerge where all options are bad. So even if no such situations are purposedly introduced, they can still happen. Learning to cope with that possibility and being able to bite that bullet from time to time is a basic gaming skill: it's called "not being a sore loser".

Some games are deliberately built to explore a hopeless situation (Kobayashi Maru). In such cases, the player should only play if they understand the premise. (Yes, even if they aim to subvert it: "You must know the rules to break them".)

[kyoryu]

Anyone interested in the topic should consider such terms as Zugzwang, Seki, Morton's Fork, Catch 22 and Lose - Lose.

It doesn't even need to be that harsh. You just need to have suboptimal decisions. "Here's two good things, you can have one!" can be a tough decision, and isn't a lose-lose, unless you consider not getting *everything* to be "losing".

Like, you're on a secret mission to do stuff, and need the dwarves to help you. They don't want to, but they will if you reveal to them who you're working for, at which point your mission isn't secret. So you can either keep your mission secret but not get the help (which will make some things tougher), or you can get the help but reveal your mission (which will make other things tougher).

[Quertus]

It's also important to note that it's still cheap if you come up with these reasons why "third options" won't work specifically for the purpose of keeping your Tough Moral DecisionTM intact. And it's especially cheap if you do so on the fly in response to a player's idea: "OK, we stick the sorceress in an antimagic field!" "Oh, um, that doesn't work, because...uh...she...counts as an artifact! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Agreed. If the DM's responses make it feel this way, or if you want to avoid it feeling this way, doing your research on the gate (etc.) *before* you attempt solutions is clearly the correct answer. Depends on how well you know and trust the DM as to whether it is strictly necessary, or just a good idea.

Or, I suppose, just accepting the false dichotomy is another possible response - but doing so after receiving knee-jerk justifications always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Frozen_Feet]

It doesn't even need to be that harsh. You just need to have suboptimal decisions.

Zugzwang, as it's used in Chess, basically means that already: each possible move weakens your position, but you have to move. It doesn't necessarily mean the game is lost due to that one move, just that something is.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that it can also be effective to say "hey, here's two good things, but you can only have one of them."

So, if you were to list them, there's kind of a number of different "hard decisions" you can make:

1) You lose/you lose
2) Which complication do you want?
3) You get one good thing and one complication
4) You get one of the good things

Zugzwang seems to be about a #2. I'll generally use 2-4, but often when we talk about "hard decisions" people just think of 1-2 exclusively.