Consequences and moral choices

[MBControl]

In my world, I've wanted to increase the RP a little more, and create conflict and story line as a result. To do this I've added a wrinkle to my travel mechanics. We run our travel mechanic a lot like it is run on The West Marches, for those that are familiar with that game on Twitch and YouTube. While traveling, the party will have to roll to see if an event occurs. If it does, normally one of 2 things will happen, first a random battle, second find a new location on the map. I've added a Consequences option to this as well. This event presents the party with a moral choice where there isn't really a right or wrong answer. It depends more on the players RP'ing the characters well. Whatever choice they make will have an effect on the ever changing world around them. These are not meant to be long quests, but rather a short stop on the road, and move on. The results will present themselves later, creating new story branches, and the knowing that they ones that created the situation.

I'm looking for interesting moral scenarios to present to my players. I'll give you an example of two that I have.

1) You come across a man and a woman fighting over a child. The party are led to choose who gets to keep the child. The mother will care for the child with the best intentions, but is pretty unhinged, so the party may fear for the childs welfare and they may be right to be worried. The father seems pretty stable if not stern, but later on in this world the party may find that the father is raising the child for evil deeds, also the mother upon loosing the decision may slit her own throat right there on the road out of grief.

2) They come across a massive Ogre that is abandoned, lost, and scared. Do they help him or (assuming this is a random battle) attack and kill him. If they help, the Ogre he would probably prove to be a strong ally in the future. Kill him and party would find some cool loot but they may be hunted down by the Ogres family members, looking for revenge and their lost family heirlooms.

Any ideas are appreciated. Thanks

[mephnick]

Moral choices are great, but if you want them to be powerful the consequences of their choice should be clear when they're faced with it and neither option should be clearly better than the other, or the "good" option should still be tough for some reason. Picking the Dad over the Mom and then finding out the Dad made the kid evil isn't much of a moral choice, you had no way of knowing that would happen. They should know in advance that the Father dabbles with an evil church, but the mom is unhinged and could possibly harm herself or the child. Then they must decide between two tough choices, or take the kid for themselves, or whatever. Hiding the possible results doesn't make the party question their character, even if the results are harsh.

You can make some hard hitting moral quandaries if you put your players in these tough situations. Probably the roughest ones I can think of in media are the end of MASH (basically they smother a crying baby to save everyone else from being caught and killed) and Sophie's Choice (Mother must choose between having son or daughter killed).

Now, they don't have to be that dark, but in each situation the character knew the outcome of their choice and neither was easy to make. That's what a moral quandary is. They can still lead to future story lines, but to your players it will seem more like a story line they created and less of a "gotcha" by the DM.

[MBControl]

I agree, the players will be given a lot more information in game, I was just trying to not write a novel. They will be given clues, and have the opportunity to interact and ask questions.

My party is also aware that the point of the mechanic is meant to create future story lines and character interaction, not to mention a good potential for some good loot. Our group is really casual but tends to think about "winning" every encounter, and not experiencing the world. In a way they also see this as "dodging" a potentially deadly fight.

I am a pretty flexible DM too, so they I may change the darkness level on the fly, depending on how the party is interacting. I would rather encourage creative RP, than tell my story.

[McNinja]

I like unintended consequences -

I have my players a choice: take on a mission from an army general to stop an undead army brewing in the western mountains or stand with his army and defeat the oncoming orc horde. The players thought the undead army the bigger threat, and took off into the mountains.

They threw the undead army off balance and caused the vampire general to flee, but they were set upon by soldiers from the army that fought the orcs - the general switched sides just before the battle, causing the good guys to lose, and now many people throught the country view the players as traitors because no one else, except for 2 others, knew about the undead army.

Not only did the good guys get defeated, but the players had taken over the four keeps from the prices of the apocalypse campaign - those are destroyed, (save for the stone monastery, because of renwick caradoon, the lich) and feathergale spire was turned into a prison and torture dungeon for the orcs, of which one was secretly a cambion. Sevra, one of the feathergale knights, was tortured and abused and now suffers from ptsd and drepression to the point of suicide.

If the players had stayed, it would have been a different story, but they made a choice.

Maybe not what you're looking for, but food for thought.

[Finieous]

This event presents the party with a moral choice where there isn't really a right or wrong answer. It depends more on the players RP'ing the characters well.

IMO, if there's no right or wrong answer, it's not much of a moral choice. It might still be a weighty choice, but it's not really a moral one. The gold standard for moral dilemmas is two right choices that are in conflict. Socrates: You've borrowed a weapon from an apparently unbalanced person. Do you repay your debts (that's a good moral choice) or do you protect others from harm (also the "right" choice). Sartre: Your brother's been killed by Nazis. Do you go fight Nazis or stay and give comfort to your distraught mother?

So with the kid, maybe, the mother is clearly more caring and nurturing to the child, but the father is more capable of protecting the child. There's a lot of embedded gender stereotypes in there, but you get the idea. Give them two right choices and let them decide (or watch as they invent a bad choice! PCs gonna PC).

The ogre is better, but not because one choice might lead to revenge from the ogre family. Helping the helpless is good, but so is protecting others from future harm.

[MBControl]

The moral choice or conundrum is based on the varying alignments in the party. Give them grey scenarios and let the LE guy try to convince the CG guy to do things one way or another. The events in our world aren't isolated, they have an effect on the NPC's, communities, and other events around them. These decisions are ripples in the pond that become a larger wave later on.

I think the Mother/Father example is a poor choice. Most are more like the ogre example, a little more cut and dry, but I (and my party) are fine with the grey nature of the scenarios. These are very small events that leave the party unsure of whether they made the best decision. No wrong choice or Two right choices amounts to the same result. The bottom line is that they spend 10 minutes actually role playing, and not immediately killing everything in sight. Then maybe a month from now, sooner, or longer, a new full scale quest may arise involving the choice they made earlier. The party will now have a more personal stake in the quest and make cool choices that will be influenced by their previous choices.

I am appreciative of all your thoughts on this, and want to hear more, and I would also like to get some new scenarios to help go along with your suggestions.

[randomodo]

- Evil villainous guy is clearly an evil and villainous guy, but his presence is preventing a greater evil from infiltrating into the campaign area. Do you kill him, knowing doing so will probably allow the nasty things against which he's been guarding to slip into the world and start eating the local peasantry?

- A hag offers a boon in the form of a powerful enchantment or magic item. But if you accept it, one day she will ask you for a favor...(possibly enforced via Geas)

- Play Dragon Age: Origins and shamelessly plagiarize some of the many moral choices therein.

[Segev]

A moral choice is not a moral dilemma. A moral choice is a situation where there is a right and a wrong decision, and they are usually fairly clear. The trouble is that the wrong decision is also the EASY one, or the most PROFITABLE. There's a reason that Evil characters prefer to characterize themselves as "pragmatic." Though there are cruel sadists, most Evil characters aren't getting off on hurting others...they just don't CARE, so they take the easy and profitable path, as long as they can get away with it.

A choice to do the right thing but make yourself look horrifically guilty to other good-minded people, for instance, is a moral choice. You will have done the best you could, and those who you saved will blame you for whatever does befall them, believing it was your action that caused it, never knowing they would have been worse off. And now you're hated for it, and treated like villains.

My dragon PC in a Rifts game faces something of this: he's not a mean person, though he's a little careless in the sense that he doesn't think magic and power are any big deal. Because he uses them casually, people freak out and treat him poorly, acting wary and wanting him to not be present. Because he doesn't actually hurt people for these insults, the fear never rises to the level of respect that, say, the Black Hat Badguy in a western gets. He winds up being told to leave town and avoided, given cold shoulders, etc., but nobody bends over backwards to kowtow to him if he shows temper; they just tell him to get lost before he "starts trouble."

It's very frustrating for him. It'd be easier, more pragmatic, to make a few examples and demand respect. But he doesn't, because he doesn't think hurting people for that level of slight is worth it. (He has other groups he does plan nasty, nasty revenge on, but they've earned it by killing his friends in cold blood.)

[Douche]

Here's a moral choice: the PCs find a button that will instantly boost them to level 20, but it will kill a random person that they are guaranteed not to know.

Here's another one: They are starving and come into a city with plenty of gold. But here's the thing; the cities entire economy operates on theft! There is no currency, if you want bread then you have to go to the baker and steal it. The baker gets all his baking supplies by stealing them. Why does he bake food for other people just so they can steal it, though? Because the king stole his daughter! And told him to do it or she dies!

Here's a good one: They're walking along the road when they hear a dragon beating it's wings overhead. Just then, a bullywog comes crashing to the ground, shattering all his bones. He begs for an end to his misery. Do the PCs try to keep him comfortable as he passes, or do they kill him right there and end his misery? If they try to heal him, they learn that he actually has a deathwish and will fight them to the death.

The PCs make good friends with the prince of whatever kingdom they are in.. The prince is soon to be married to the princess of a foreign land which they have been warring with for generations. This marriage will cement an alliance which will end this war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The prince actually likes the party paladin so much that he makes him the best man. On top of that, the prince is totally in love with the princess and has never felt this way about a woman before. On the day of the wedding, it is revealed that the foreign princess has been cheating on the prince with one of her knights. The paladin walks in on them in the act. She begs him not to say anything. If anyone finds out about this, the princess and the knight will be executed, and the war will surely continue for 100 more years. If the paladin doesn't say anything, then he will be letting the prince down. What does he do??

The PCs are now part of a resistance group that defends the meek and helpless against the evil empire. Said resistance consists of a warrior class - who go to free refugees and undermine the empire (destroy their resources, etc) - and the refugees - old people, women & children - who cannot fend for themselves. Food is limited and they hardly ever even get a solid meal every day. The leader lives by a communist ideal, everyone gets an equal share regardless if they are a warrior or not. A group within the warriors believes they should be getting a larger share of the food, so they can become stronger and therefore fight harder - potentially bringing in more food/resources; however, the balance is so precarious that taking even 10% more food would cause the elderly to starve. Resistance leader tells him that's not gonna fly. Warrior douche pulls a sword on the leader, wants to start a mutiny. Leader is outnumbered and will certainly die without intervention. What do the PCs do?

PCs are walking in the city and inadvertently kill a guy somehow, perhaps by causing a large load to fall off some scaffolding and crush him. Some dude leaning on the scaffolding and thinks he was responsible, starts freaking out. There are no other witnesses. Guards arrive, arrive at the conclusion that the dude killed the guy. Whoever was responsible is going to jail, no question. Do the PCs take responsibility or let the innocent guy rot in jail?

[LordVonDerp]

- Play Dragon Age: Origins and shamelessly plagiarize some of the many moral choices therein.

Better yet, play a game with moral choices that are actually interesting.

Or watch Game of Thrones.

[randomodo]

Better yet, play a game with moral choices that are actually interesting.

Or watch Game of Thrones.

I don't have as much time for computer gaming as I used to (hence the dated Dragon Age reference). Recommendations?

[RickAllison]

I don't have as much time for computer gaming as I used to (hence the dated Dragon Age reference). Recommendations?

Don't watch Game of Thrones, then. You could try reading the Night Angel Trilogy, by Brent Weeks. Lots of discussion of morality in those.

[randomodo]

Oh, I've both read and watched Game of Thrones already, so I've already formed an opinion on those. I'll take a look at Brent Weeks.

[Douche]

I don't have as much time for computer gaming as I used to (hence the dated Dragon Age reference). Recommendations?

You don't need to copy video games. You just need to think with your brain!

What would you do if the love of your life was suffering kidney failure, and the only way to save her was to either donate your own kidney (and survive but be severely weakened) or kill your father and take his? On top of that, once you give her your [ /fathers] kidney, she decides she doesn't love you anymore and you're left alone.

What if you walked into a town and the first thing you see is an orc male/elf female couple, and they are so giddy with excitement as they approach the town hall to file for a marriage license. You smile and wish them a happy future, thinking nothing of it, then you and your party goes your own way. 20 minutes later, you see a crowd forming outside the town hall. They're all elves and they are chanting something about no orc/elf relations. The couple is being strung up, upside down, by their legs over the front door to the hall. People begin throwing rocks at them. They are going to get stoned to death if no one stops this barbaric practice. Your bard, being the charismatic one, tries to calm down the crowd, but their leader interjects and says you're destroying his culture. What do you do?

There's an evil regime being supported by a faceless megacorporation. The evil regime rules with an iron fist, but they ensure stability in the region. Everyone is entitled to a good education in STEM fields for free (provided they are intelligent enough to study it after "high school". Otherwise they become farmers or laborers) and is decently fed. However, they have a strict propaganda machine. Everyone is taught to never question the government. All forms of entertainment are in praise of the government. Dissidents are sent to prison camps and never heard from again. On top of that, the entire country is made to serve the faceless megacorporation, feeding them resources so they can build their World Ending DeviceTM... On the other side, you have nomadic rebels living in the mountains. They celebrate art and culture, preach individual freedom, etc. However, they are just totally crap at womens rights. They think women are nothing more than objects and child-bearers. These are ideals they have carried over from before the days of the evil regime, and think that men are the only important figures in their culture. In fact, they are also like the greeks in that they practice pederasty - meaning that women are used solely for procreation, and a real loving relationship is between 2 men. Their leader is power hungry and wants to spread chaos, because he believes that living in a society of order cannot be considered life. Which side would you go with?

[randomodo]

You don't need to copy video games. You just need to think with your brain!

Howdy, Douche: I'm afraid that you misunderstood my comment. I'm perfectly content with the level of moral complexity, mixed victories, and questionable outcomes that I've got in my D&D campaign. I was asking (given that I have limited time to play computer games lately) for recommendations for good computer games that include tough choices as part of the game.

(Your game scenario examples were good, though)

Cheers,

[Douche]

Howdy, Douche: I'm afraid that you misunderstood my comment. I'm perfectly content with the level of moral complexity, mixed victories, and questionable outcomes that I've got in my D&D campaign. I was asking (given that I have limited time to play computer games lately) for recommendations for good computer games that include tough choices as part of the game.

(Your game scenario examples were good, though)

Cheers,

My mistake, I was just having some fun.. Didn't realize you weren't the TC.

Have you ever played Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magicka Obscura?

[randomodo]

I started that one a million years ago when it first came out, but for some reason didn't finish. I think I was a tech-ish focused dwarf. I remember dealing with half orcs who were relegated to manual labor in the cities, and a wannabe railroad tycoon named Gil Bates. Hmm.... it's probably available on GoG or Steam (I have no idea where my CD ROM for it is, and I have a hard time envisioning playing a game off CD anymore anyway).

[Vogonjeltz]

IMO, if there's no right or wrong answer, it's not much of a moral choice. It might still be a weighty choice, but it's not really a moral one. The gold standard for moral dilemmas is two right choices that are in conflict. Socrates: You've borrowed a weapon from an apparently unbalanced person. Do you repay your debts (that's a good moral choice) or do you protect others from harm (also the "right" choice). Sartre: Your brother's been killed by Nazis. Do you go fight Nazis or stay and give comfort to your distraught mother?

So with the kid, maybe, the mother is clearly more caring and nurturing to the child, but the father is more capable of protecting the child. There's a lot of embedded gender stereotypes in there, but you get the idea. Give them two right choices and let them decide (or watch as they invent a bad choice! PCs gonna PC).

The ogre is better, but not because one choice might lead to revenge from the ogre family. Helping the helpless is good, but so is protecting others from future harm.

I think the issue is that there must be mutually exclusive answers.

i.e. One could easily give comfort to their distraught family AND then go fight those who caused the harm. Or one could assure the family that vengeance will be meted out against the villains, or they will be brought to justice, and merely hearing those words could provide some level of comfort. So in that sense the Sartre question is nonsensical, but it could be refined as:

Your brother and his wife are killed by the villain's minions, leaving behind an infant. You want revenge, but the infant must be cared for and you know of no suitable alternatives to yourself.

Do you go into hiding to raise your neice/nephew in relative safety? Do you try to find a suitable caregiver, in case you fail to return from your quest (potentially abandoning them forever)? Or do you try to bring them with you, in quest fraught with danger?