Ethical Quagmires

[Frozen_Feet]

Self-harm is, in D&D terms, a question of Law versus Chaos than Good versus Evil. In different terms, one's acceptance of it depends heavily on where one places on the invidualist-collectivist spectrum.

An invidualist/chaotic person will always emphasize a person's right to self-direction and argue how it's "no-one else's business".

A collectivist/lawful person will always emphasize effects on the group and argue "yes, it is our business".

Someone in-between/neutral person will pick one depending on what's convenient to them.

[Douche]

O, I've got another one. This one is a bit longer, it turned out to be a lot of fun writing it out. However:

This seems like the story of an evil pharmaceutical company. Why would I want to help people get addicted to a substance that doesn't even do anything? It just lets you do other stuff and not get addicted. But it's just another way for pharmaceutical companies to sell a "treatment" instead of a "cure"

I also think that addiction is being oversimplified here. First off, while the new drug might help them overcome the physical aspects (withdrawals), there's no such thing as a magic pill that will let you overcome the mental aspects. They have something like that for smoking (it blocks your nicotine receptors so you get no pleasure from it) but people just stop taking the pill. You still need the willpower to actually stop. Second, I don't think there are any drugs that are addicting (physically or mentally) without offering something in return. The most benign one I see on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence#Drugs_that_cause_physical_depe ndence) is blood pressure medication. I'm not gonna speculate on the biology there but point being, this drug just sounds like a pharmaceutical reps wet dream.

Speaking of magic pills, I'd just... like, use magic. I'd start my own "miracle cure" shop and just cast Geas on everyone so they don't drink or smoke. They'd quit pretty fast when they're Pavlov's dog'd into having a nightmarish mind explosion every time they take a sip of beer. Problem solved... Oh also, have to destroy the evil pharmaceutical company. They're obviously profiting off suffering. Need to destroy them. Damn the consequences when people can't get their antibiotics and such.

[Segev]

Speaking of magic pills, I'd just... like, use magic. I'd start my own "miracle cure" shop and just cast Geas on everyone so they don't drink or smoke. They'd quit pretty fast when they're Pavlov's dog'd into having a nightmarish mind explosion every time they take a sip of beer. Problem solved... Oh also, have to destroy the evil pharmaceutical company. They're obviously profiting off suffering. Need to destroy them. Damn the consequences when people can't get their antibiotics and such.

Actually, if you're using D&D's geas spells (specifically 3.5's, arguably any edition's), then they're only "Pavlov's dog'd into having a nightmarish mind explosion" if they're forced to drink, smoke, or whatever. Because the spell compels compliance as long as their volition enters into it. So they couldn't willingly partake of the forbidden substance(s). Only be tricked into it or force-fed it.

[Douche]

Actually, if you're using D&D's geas spells (specifically 3.5's, arguably any edition's), then they're only "Pavlov's dog'd into having a nightmarish mind explosion" if they're forced to drink, smoke, or whatever. Because the spell compels compliance as long as their volition enters into it. So they couldn't willingly partake of the forbidden substance(s). Only be tricked into it or force-fed it.

I was thinking 5e, but ya know, maybe it's their addiction that's forcing them to drink. So they're not doing it of their own volition, they're doing it because they don't have the will to stop drinking.

If they asked me to help them break their addiction, then that means they are willing to stop. That means they are drinking because they cannot stop, so the Geas will work. If not, then they just genuinely want to be alcoholics and/or are not willing to stop. Or, at least, that's what I'd argue to make it work :smalltongue:

[Segev]

I was thinking 5e, but ya know, maybe it's their addiction that's forcing them to drink. So they're not doing it of their own volition, they're doing it because they don't have the will to stop drinking.

If they asked me to help them break their addiction, then that means they are willing to stop. That means they are drinking because they cannot stop, so the Geas will work. If not, then they just genuinely want to be alcoholics and/or are not willing to stop. Or, at least, that's what I'd argue to make it work :smalltongue:

Lack of willpower isn't lack of volition. But that's probably getting too far into the weeds (and other potentially unpleasant topics).

5e's... you CAN read it to say it's a compulsion, but you have to work hard to do so. It's not a very good spell if it isn't, though.

[OldTrees1]

Lack of willpower isn't lack of volition. But that's probably getting too far into the weeds (and other potentially unpleasant topics).
I thought willpower and volition were colloquial terms for the same thing. (Wikipedia.org Volition_(psychology) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(psychology)#Overview))

However you might be referring to:
Having a preference between 2 outcomes that are not in the same choice not always translating into choices between the outcomes available moving towards outcomes similar to the preferred outcome. (Aka Someone might prefer not being addicted over being addicted but ends up preferring partaking over suffering the withdrawal of abstaining while addicted)
Having a preference between 2 outcomes from a long chain of choices not always translating into choosing the outcomes of individual choices that would lead to that long-term preferred outcome.
A third thing.

[Douche]

Lack of willpower isn't lack of volition. But that's probably getting too far into the weeds (and other potentially unpleasant topics).

5e's... you CAN read it to say it's a compulsion, but you have to work hard to do so. It's not a very good spell if it isn't, though.

Huh?

Geas in 5e makes you have to follow a command, and you're charmed, and if you disobey the command then you take 5d10 psychic damage. Technically you don't even have to follow the command unless you want to roleplay the charmed condition... but the point is, you take psychic damage whenever you disobey it. If I tell you never to wear shoes, and you decide to put on a pair of shoes, then you'd take 5d10 psychic damage. I like to imagine it as having a freaky mental breakdown for a few seconds.

It only works once a day, so you can go ahead and put on your shoes after your mental breakdown... but I was just figuring - aside from the pure mechanics of it - that someone who wants to quit drinking would probably start to get conditioned into not starting to drink each day. If you're sober and once a day each time you start drinking, your brain explodes in psychic agony, you'd probably start drinking a little less.

It's not a terrible spell either. If a DM placed it on an unruly player, then they have to dedicate a number of resources to recovering from that damage each day. It's just meant to be a hindrance if you choose to be a douche... Unless you have less than 50 health, in which case you will eventually die if you keep disobeying a Geas to "not kill innocents" or "stop stealing from the party" or whatever. As for compulsions, I don't think it's cool to take away a players freedom. The DM can't roll a persuasion check against a player and force him to be persuaded. Same with Geas. If the player wants to roleplay being compelled, then he's a good roleplayer and thumbs up to him... But you can't force it on him. Player agency, man.

[Segev]

Actually, no. If you read 5e's geas accurately, the part you can read as a compulsion if you really, really want to is the aspirational bit at the beginning. Like I said, you can read it that way, but it's natural to read it as merely aspirational and the rest as the real mechanics.

Sadly, "the rest" specify a charmed condition (which only stops the victim from attacking the caster, and gives him advantage on Persuasion rolls against said victim, so MAYBE he can talk him into doing what he's geased to do), and that, if he actively works against the specified course of action, he suffers the psychic damage.

This damage is high. It likely will kill anything below a mid-level adventurer. So the first time most victims act directly against your order, they probably die. This doesn't force them to act TOWARDS your order, either. So, at best, this is a "don't do [X], or you'll die" spell. A far cry from its aspirational "give somebody a quest they must fulfill" sort of phrasing at the beginning.

Now, again, you can read the aspirational bit as part of he mechanics, if you want to. If you read it that way, then yes, the character is compelled to obey the geas. But it's really flimsy wording to hang your hat on.

[Douche]

Actually, no. If you read 5e's geas accurately, the part you can read as a compulsion if you really, really want to is the aspirational bit at the beginning. Like I said, you can read it that way, but it's natural to read it as merely aspirational and the rest as the real mechanics.

Sadly, "the rest" specify a charmed condition (which only stops the victim from attacking the caster, and gives him advantage on Persuasion rolls against said victim, so MAYBE he can talk him into doing what he's geased to do), and that, if he actively works against the specified course of action, he suffers the psychic damage.

This damage is high. It likely will kill anything below a mid-level adventurer. So the first time most victims act directly against your order, they probably die. This doesn't force them to act TOWARDS your order, either. So, at best, this is a "don't do [X], or you'll die" spell. A far cry from its aspirational "give somebody a quest they must fulfill" sort of phrasing at the beginning.

Now, again, you can read the aspirational bit as part of he mechanics, if you want to. If you read it that way, then yes, the character is compelled to obey the geas. But it's really flimsy wording to hang your hat on.

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to, cuz you just said exactly the same thing I did. I said the compulsion is optional, and you can't force a player to obey it (if they're not afraid of death)... So what are we debating?

[Segev]

Mostly with the "technically, you don't even have to obey the command unless you want to RP the charmed condition." Either you have to obey it (treating the "you force somebody" part as being mechanical), or you don't (treating it as aspirational). It's not optional to the player; it's optional in how the GM enforces it. How does your DM read that sentence?

[Douche]

Mostly with the "technically, you don't even have to obey the command unless you want to RP the charmed condition." Either you have to obey it (treating the "you force somebody" part as being mechanical), or you don't (treating it as aspirational). It's not optional to the player; it's optional in how the GM enforces it. How does your DM read that sentence?

That's why I wrote in the whole thing about taking away player agency. If you're going to force someone to act a certain way without giving them the option not to (which is why the psychic damage was added in) then you might as well make the character an NPC. If the DM tried to do that to me, I'd just let the character die and roll another one. So it is optional to the player. While I think there are measures to curb disruptive or trolling players, forcing them to do exactly as you say is not the solution.... Like, Superman believes in the good in people. He could easily become an evil overlord and destroy all crime and run a totalitarian society, but instead he chooses to be a symbol of hope in the world and leads by example, ya know?

Same thing goes for charmed. If you, as a player, become charmed, how are you going to play that out (specifically under 5e rules?) Because all it means is you can't attack them and they have advantage against speech checks. A good roleplayer would allow themselves to be charmed, but you're not going to jump off a cliff if they ask you to (hence the "suicidal" rider in most mind-control/altering spells)

So it is aspirational. I agree with you there. It's up to you to decide how compelled you are to follow the command. You can devote your entire life to it, or you can be "compelled" into not suffering brain explosions.

[Segev]

Eh. "You're compelled to actively pursue this goal" is hardly taking away all player agency over the character. How he pursues that goal, for instance, is very much up to the character and the player. How happy he is about it, too, should be (though the weird choice of the charm condition to represent the control aspect muddies that considerably).

Domination effects are really the only way to totally remove player agency. Though a player who won't "play along" with compulsions does sometimes require it. "No, you can't voluntarily take the damage."


However...the other thing about 5e's geas that I think you're missing is that, if you don't read it as being a compulsion that forces the player to make his character go along with it, the character doesn't take damage unless he acts directly against the command.

Let's say that the command was to install Duke Evilvizier as the king. If the compulsion is aspirational, then the player can play his character however he wants, taking absolutely no actions to help Duke Evilvizier become king, so long as he never directly opposes it. Merely failing to do anything to undermine the current King, ingratiate the Duke to the King as a potential heir, or the like, won't hurt him at all.

Or let's say the command was to retrieve the Chalice of Eternal Youth from the Palace of Pain in the Disaster Dimension. As long as the character doesn't actively prevent anybody from getting the chalice, he is golden. He can go on as many adventures as he wants, never bother to head anywhere near the dimension, the palace, or (even if in the same room as it) pick up the chalice. He isn't directly acting AGAINST the order; he merely isn't acting to follow it. Only if he actively strove to prevent the chalice from being retrieved by somebody who was going to get it to the geas-caster would the psychic damage kick in, per the RAW of the 5e version of the spell.

[Douche]

I think you're thinking more about how the 5e Geas relates to the 3.5 Geas/Quest.

I never actually played 3.5 but my DM was telling me about it as it relates to Geas... Now I went and looked it up. That one is a lot less open to interpretation and makes a lot more sense as a compulsory spell for giving someone a quest, like finding that fancy chalice. I also like how this version slowly degrades the character instead of giving them a chunk of damage that they can just heal afterwards (particularly if they have over 50 health)

The 5e version seems a lot simpler, though. You're right that the target of the spell can just not do anything in opposition, which is why I feel like the spell was just included for DMs to use against unruly players. You don't have to tell him to follow your plot or whatever. He should be doing that in the first place (or at least your party should, hopefully). You just have to give him a command that would prevent him from screwing stuff up all the time, that isn't open to interpretation. Like I said earlier, if he keeps slaughtering innocents for his amusement, just tell him to stop doing that. Or, as originally, tell an alcoholic to stop drinking.

Anyway, I agree with you and you're right - I just think the purpose of the spell in 5e has much less of a scope than 3.5

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How would your PC'S react if someone used a cure wounds on a dying but interesting thread?

(Yes, I'm hoping someone has another good dilemma/quagmire/quagsire/whatever.)

[Segev]

How would your PC'S react if someone used a cure wounds on a dying but interesting thread?Well, that doesn't seem like a moral or ethical dilemma. Saving an interesting life is usually fine with anybody of any alignment!


(Yes, I'm hoping someone has another good dilemma.)

Well, how about a semi-classic one unique to objectively-declared but not principle-based alignments and actions?

You come across a town full of people who are, on the whole, nice and helpful, don't lie or cheat or steal more than any other group (and, in fact, may be a little more on the up-and-up on average than normal), and respect life at least as much as any other non-evil town you've ever come across. Their ruler is fair, just, and benevolent, and seems to be in charge because he's powerful and helpful and runs a business that fuels much of the town's economy, standard of living, and defense.

Unfortunately, that business is necromancy. He creates and binds unintelligent undead, enslaves intelligent undead that have committed evil acts (rather than executing them) when captured and tried, and uses them as dumb labor and special ops forces to protect his town from other threats. Evil undead tend to avoid the area, after the few which got themselves enslaved, because he doesn't tolerate any predation nor spread of spawn. The few less-than-evil undead who live their willingly, or the evil ones which accept enslavement rather than execution (because exile risks them coming back later), are fed (if they require it) by voluntary "donation" (in that the donors are paid an agreed-upon fee), and use animal livestock where possible.

The unintelligent undead come from buying the corpses from their next of kin. The necromancer even puts on a small funeral service if other arrangements haven't been made; he essentially serves as an undertaker/funeral home in this respect. If the family wants to pay for their loved one's skeleton or zombie, they get it at a discount (instead of being paid for the raw materials).

Without him, his town (full of generally nice people who, in any other situation, a Good-aligned party would consider "innocent villagers") would be vulnerable to all sorts of dangerous threats (vampires, marauding hordes of humanoids...) and would suffer a tremendous drop in standard of living.

Due to the fact that "creating undead is always evil," the necromancer probably qualifies as terribly so. But other than creating and controlling undead (and preventing them from hurting the living), investigations turn up, at worst, the kinds of foibles any good-aligned, non-paragon-of-the-alignment individual might have.

What does your party of proudly Good-aligned adventurers do? Does whether the necromancer pings on "evil-dar" change anything? (Consider that he COULD use magic to hide his alignment. In fact, he may well keep mind blank up all the time as part of his defenses against the one or few vampires that work for him.)

[goto124]

To be honest, that town sounds like the perfect display of "necromancy is not evil" and a giant slap to the face of whoever says "creating undead is always evil period no questions asked". Why stop them?

Why is it evil anyway? Because it traps the soul in eternal torment? Prove that's what it does at all, for all you know it's pure superstition and fear-mongering to discourage necromancy.

Many times people have argued the whole "necromancy is inherently evil" thing. Leave them be. If it's somehow a bad idea we'll see in enough time. But currently? Not enough evidence. It's not necessarily disrespect for the dead - respect can differ from culture to culture, in this culture it's respectful to be raised from the dead.

Then again, would any PCs look carefully enough when they see undead, instead of going murderhobo because undead and genre convention :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

Well, how about a semi-classic one unique to objectively-declared but not principle-based alignments and actions?

He creates and binds unintelligent undead, enslaves intelligent undead that have committed evil acts (rather than executing them)

The unintelligent undead come from buying the corpses from their next of kin. The necromancer even puts on a small funeral service if other arrangements haven't been made; he essentially serves as an undertaker/funeral home in this respect. If the family wants to pay for their loved one's skeleton or zombie, they get it at a discount (instead of being paid for the raw materials).

Due to the fact that "creating undead is always evil," the necromancer probably qualifies as terribly so. But other than creating and controlling undead (and preventing them from hurting the living), investigations turn up, at worst, the kinds of foibles any good-aligned, non-paragon-of-the-alignment individual might have.

What does your party of proudly Good-aligned adventurers do? Does whether the necromancer pings on "evil-dar" change anything? (Consider that he COULD use magic to hide his alignment. In fact, he may well keep mind blank up all the time as part of his defenses against the one or few vampires that work for him.)

Well, you have stated this dilemma has the premise of "objectively-declared but not principle-based" Moral Truth. I know of various problems with such a premise especially related to attempting to solve moral dilemmas within such a system. But it is a fundamental premise and I will follow with it.

The big one is that under objectively declared but not principle based Moral Truth, the only permissible actions are the actions arbitrarily defined as permissible. Since the definitions are arbitrary, the only permissible actions a particular Moral Agent would know are the ones they were explicitly told. This causes either paralysis in the Moral Agent or it causes them to choose an Amoral principle to live by when the situation is not one of the few they know the answer to.

Although if the Moral Agent had even a shred of doubt about the Moral Truth being not principle based, they might instead replace it with a principle based moral theory rather than choose an Amoral principle to use as their tie breaker. So that is what I will do here:

Under the premise I have been informed that necromancy is Evil. However it is unlikely that I have been informed about what the correct action to deal with Evil is. As such I would not commit necromancy and would suggest others likewise abstain (consequence of the known arbitrary moral fact). However the rest of my moral calculus would probably deal with preventing harm and respecting private choices. This would cause me to be generally ok with allowing the necromancer to continue, EXCEPT for the enslavement. Afterwards I would spend time and effort investigating in vain for a principle behind the arbitrary moral fact.

[Douche]

How would your PC'S react if someone used a cure wounds on a dying but interesting thread?

(Yes, I'm hoping someone has another good dilemma/quagmire/quagsire/whatever.)

Hey, thanks! I enjoyed this thread a lot too. Glad to see it's back!


Here's one that I have thought of in the time since this thread dwindled down:

In your travels you are constantly pestered by a master thief/trickster character who has been undermining your efforts all the time. For some reason (make one up - maybe he's in love with one of the female PCs) he has been following your group specifically, from town to town. He has never directly stole from you guys, but he gets much enjoyment from screwing you guys over. For instance, you went to slay a bandit lord. As you get there, you see him at the bandit lords side. He has somehow earned the bandits trust and is standing at his side. As you engage them in combat, the trickster steals the bandit lords prized medallion - the same one needed to turn in as proof to collect the bounty, and he escapes. When you return to town, you find the trickster has already collected the reward and is currently having a night out on the town, squandering the gold on drink and prostitutes.

He also likes to, ya know, cut down rope bridges that you needed to cross, stuff like that. Just generally being a huge douche to you guys for his amusement.

Eventually, you reach a military camp, going to ask for a quest or something. When you get there, you see the trickster shackled and bloodied. He is currently being whipped. Upon asking what the deal with him is, you will be told that he is wanted for kidnapping the prince, and he will be tortured until the king arrives in one week, then put to death. The trickster is definitely not responsible for kidnapping the prince. You actually encountered the prince a few weeks ago, he ran away from home cuz he hates his princely duties. He just wants to be an adventurer. But he left false evidence that he was kidnapped.

Anyway, the trickster - who was a constant thorn in your side - is now being tortured for a crime he didn't commit. Will you stand up for him and allow him to be freed, or kill him through inaction?

[Segev]

I call it "not principle-based" because I don't want to try to introduce a principle to the setting. In D&D, where this most often crops up, we're only told, "necromancy is evil," and "animating dead is evil." Nothing in the description of the spells' effects really gives an indication why (other than "it seems creepy"). I can easily make up reasons why it's a horrific thing to do, but none of them would be canon. (Just about all the scenarios I can think of that would make it capital-E evil are so rotten that even doing it "from time to time in battle" is probably shoving you hard towards that alignment. But nothing of the sort is in evidence in the mechanics and fluff we're presented, other than being told it's some vague "perversion of life" that makes it evil. Why? Because.)

Presumably, if there's an actual principle behind it, what that is will determine at least in part how you deal with the situation.

[Segev]

Hey, thanks! I enjoyed this thread a lot too. Glad to see it's back!


Here's one that I have thought of in the time since this thread dwindled down:

In your travels you are constantly pestered by a master thief/trickster character who has been undermining your efforts all the time. For some reason (make one up - maybe he's in love with one of the female PCs) he has been following your group specifically, from town to town. He has never directly stole from you guys, but he gets much enjoyment from screwing you guys over. For instance, you went to slay a bandit lord. As you get there, you see him at the bandit lords side. He has somehow earned the bandits trust and is standing at his side. As you engage them in combat, the trickster steals the bandit lords prized medallion - the same one needed to turn in as proof to collect the bounty, and he escapes. When you return to town, you find the trickster has already collected the reward and is currently having a night out on the town, squandering the gold on drink and prostitutes.

He also likes to, ya know, cut down rope bridges that you needed to cross, stuff like that. Just generally being a huge douche to you guys for his amusement.

Eventually, you reach a military camp, going to ask for a quest or something. When you get there, you see the trickster shackled and bloodied. He is currently being whipped. Upon asking what the deal with him is, you will be told that he is wanted for kidnapping the prince, and he will be tortured until the king arrives in one week, then put to death. The trickster is definitely not responsible for kidnapping the prince. You actually encountered the prince a few weeks ago, he ran away from home cuz he hates his princely duties. He just wants to be an adventurer. But he left false evidence that he was kidnapped.

Anyway, the trickster - who was a constant thorn in your side - is now being tortured for a crime he didn't commit. Will you stand up for him and allow him to be freed, or kill him through inaction?

This one also seems pretty straight-forward. The right thing to do is stand up for him. Whether you do that or the personally satisfyingly vindictive thing is going to depend on your character's personality and moral compass. If he's CN to NE, probably not. If he's any flavor of G to LN, probably. LE...depends how badly you value "law" versus how much it's just a tool for you to use (and you're not REQUIRED to clarify if others make mistakes...). TN... probably let him hang without SOMETHING in it for him, but maybe not. The choice will push him one way or the other, towards law/good or chaos/evil. Not enough by itself to make his alignment change, but it is notable to check his ongoing pattern.

[Douche]

As for the undead town; I don't see why I should interfere with this town. They're not currently hurting anyone.

On the other hand, the undead could spread if the necromancer dies or loses control of them. Then that would be like a Minority Report pre-crime situation though. Is it right for someone to stop a situation because it has the potential to become dangerous to others? Well... the way I phrased it, yeah, probably. Like, if someone had a bunch of nuclear missiles, ya know... should probably stop that guy.

[OldTrees1]

Anyway, the trickster - who was a constant thorn in your side - is now being tortured for a crime he didn't commit. Will you stand up for him and allow him to be freed, or kill him through inaction?

I have no obligation to free him, but free him I ought.


I call it "not principle-based" because I don't want to try to introduce a principle to the setting. In D&D, where this most often crops up, we're only told, "necromancy is evil," and "animating dead is evil." Nothing in the description of the spells' effects really gives an indication why (other than "it seems creepy"). I can easily make up reasons why it's a horrific thing to do, but none of them would be canon. (Just about all the scenarios I can think of that would make it capital-E evil are so rotten that even doing it "from time to time in battle" is probably shoving you hard towards that alignment. But nothing of the sort is in evidence in the mechanics and fluff we're presented, other than being told it's some vague "perversion of life" that makes it evil. Why? Because.)

Presumably, if there's an actual principle behind it, what that is will determine at least in part how you deal with the situation.

The arbitrary moral truth premise was interesting. I tried, and hope I succeeded, in giving it the valid answer it deserved.

[Segev]

I have no obligation to free him, but free him I ought.Well put.




The arbitrary moral truth premise was interesting. I tried, and hope I succeeded, in giving it the valid answer it deserved.
I thought so. I just felt the need to elaborate on what I meant by it and why I chose it. It wasn't to make it "obvious" or "difficult," but because it's the scenario that - in a white room discussion - is presented by necromancy in D&D.

[goto124]

The master thief situation: "That's it. Make me Evil, I don't care. I'm not letting him live, just make sure he has a swift death. I can't take an extra second of his nonsense, I'm not one of those silly stories where a recurring disruptive character keeps getting away and making my life miserable just because he technically didn't do anything wrong enough to merit punishment."

Not that it's necessarily ethical :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Free the thief and then dedicate the rest of the campaign to getting him to become a Darklord of Ravenloft. Nerts to the rest of the campaign, that guy is going to suffer for making us have to save him.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Hey, thanks! I enjoyed this thread a lot too. Glad to see it's back!


Here's one that I have thought of in the time since this thread dwindled down:

In your travels you are constantly pestered by a master thief/trickster character who has been undermining your efforts all the time. For some reason (make one up - maybe he's in love with one of the female PCs) he has been following your group specifically, from town to town. He has never directly stole from you guys, but he gets much enjoyment from screwing you guys over. For instance, you went to slay a bandit lord. As you get there, you see him at the bandit lords side. He has somehow earned the bandits trust and is standing at his side. As you engage them in combat, the trickster steals the bandit lords prized medallion - the same one needed to turn in as proof to collect the bounty, and he escapes. When you return to town, you find the trickster has already collected the reward and is currently having a night out on the town, squandering the gold on drink and prostitutes.

He also likes to, ya know, cut down rope bridges that you needed to cross, stuff like that. Just generally being a huge douche to you guys for his amusement.

Eventually, you reach a military camp, going to ask for a quest or something. When you get there, you see the trickster shackled and bloodied. He is currently being whipped. Upon asking what the deal with him is, you will be told that he is wanted for kidnapping the prince, and he will be tortured until the king arrives in one week, then put to death. The trickster is definitely not responsible for kidnapping the prince. You actually encountered the prince a few weeks ago, he ran away from home cuz he hates his princely duties. He just wants to be an adventurer. But he left false evidence that he was kidnapped.

Anyway, the trickster - who was a constant thorn in your side - is now being tortured for a crime he didn't commit. Will you stand up for him and allow him to be freed, or kill him through inaction?

Bullet to the head, or the nearest local equivalent. The sonofalich has tried to kill us (or at least severely endangered our lives for no good reason, which amounts to the same thing), so we kill him back. He hasn't done enough to deserve his horrible torturous death, but I'm not endangering myself (not to mention potentially harming perfectly innocent guards and such) to give him a rescue beyond that. (if he's being publicly tortured, then killing him via ranged attack from stealth shouldn't be too difficult or risky)

[goto124]

There's also a non-good reason to kill him quickly instead of torturing him:

Why waste time getting rid of him, lest the opportunity slips through your fingertips due to an easily avoided blunder? You may think it's sweet revenge to see him suffer, but it's even sweeter to have him gone for good.

[Cazero]

By rule of law, he should have been put to death anyway for being a known associate and trusted lieutenant of a bandit lord who was sentenced to death. So what I'm going to do is make sure the executioner gets the charges right. Maybe post-mortem.

[Douche]

By rule of law, he should have been put to death anyway for being a known associate and trusted lieutenant of a bandit lord who was sentenced to death. So what I'm going to do is make sure the executioner gets the charges right. Maybe post-mortem.

Actually he was an infiltrator who quickly earned his trust and then assassinated the bandit lord, then collected the bounty. At least that's what the record shows.

In any case, he was only there for the bounty.

[Cazero]

Records? What records? Those that neglect mentioning how the entire camp was dispatched by not an infiltrator? If all you have to do to steal a reward is snatch some bauble and run with it, there are no such records.
And you're not earning the trust of any proper bandit lord without breaking the law big time. There must be some murdering involved at some point in the process.

[Douche]

Records? What records? Those that neglect mentioning how the entire camp was dispatched by not an infiltrator? If all you have to do to steal a reward is snatch some bauble and run with it, there are no such records.
And you're not earning the trust of any proper bandit lord without breaking the law big time. There must be some murdering involved at some point in the process.

Adding more details is what got me in trouble way back in the beginning of this topic :smalltongue:

Anyway, I think letting him die is more of a neutral solution. Maybe a little evil... but if nothing else, it certainly is practical.

Unfortunately, saving him is essential to unlocking the side-quest to get the Infinity+1 Sword later on... cuz doing the good karma solution always leads to the best rewards :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

[goto124]

Unfortunately, saving him is essential to unlocking the side-quest to get the Infinity+1 Sword later on... cuz doing the good karma solution always leads to the best rewards :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

Finish the game with him dead first, because he makes many things a lot harder. You get to complete other achievements and get the hang of the game this way.

The you replay the game and save him this time! :smalltongue: