PDA

View Full Version : Ethical Quagmires



Pages : [1] 2

Douche
2016-02-02, 03:18 PM
I made these up in a different thread (not mine), but everyone seems to be ignoring me... How would you guys react in these wacky scenarios?

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?

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?

Here's some new ones that came out during the course of the topic (not all mine). I don't know what the character limit is but I hope I can fit them all.
Here's a new one I thought of last night.


In your world, the great and noble Plated Mammoth are prized hunting trophies for rich nobles, who travel the world to obtain one of these status symbols. The Plated Mammoth has a large migratory course throughout much of the continent each year, but for the winter they convene at the north pole for mating season. The northern barbarians there have based their culture around the primal animal spirits, one of which are the mammoth. Sadly, the mammoth is nearing extinction because of the over hunting around the continent.

Here's the thing - the barbarians use the plated mammoth as a staple food source. It is their main source of protein throughout the year. The barbarian hunting was sustainable for generations upon generations, up until about 20 years ago when it became fashionable for southerners to hunt them on their migration and mount them on their walls or outfit their guards with the powerful plating. It is also ingrained in their culture as a rite of passage - a boy does not become a man until he has participated in his first mammoth hunt.

They still have a meager amount of other protein sources - fish and caribou and such... but those are not nearly enough to feed their whole society. After all, they are in one of the most remote parts of the world. There are not many other animals out there. However, the barbarians are tied to the land and believe that the spirits would not let them starve. If you choose to convince them to move south, you will find yourself unable to do so. The elders will hear nothing of it. Some of the younger generations might leave, but the majority will follow the elders.

How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?


A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:

A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.

You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.

In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.

You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.


My Gm dropped us an actual ethical quagmire which managed to split our party. It does require a bit of presentation, but here it is:

Pathfinder. You are in a kingdom on an island, this kingdom is in a terrible situation, it lost all its leaders half a century ago when a dungeon spawned in the old capitol, took the king and the whole royal lineage, with crowns and all that, and reappears once a month, before disappearing again. Nobody ascended to the throne, as one absolutely needs the blessed crown of the realm, and if one wants to avoid plagues having royal blood is needed. The kingdom is led by the only two surviving members of the king's council, the marshall of the realm, and the protector (yes, of the realm too.) These two allow adventurers to enter the dungeon, in search of adventure, riches, and recognition, in the hope they'll somehow find the crown and breathe life anew into the kingdom. They are both former explorers of the dungeon and are fairly high leveled. Your group entered the dungeon and survived, which is quite a feat, and did so a couple of times, earning you power undisputed, some influence, but you are still under the orders of the marshall and protector. During your last dungeon crawl, you managed to find the princess, held safe in a protective slumber... By a demon. Nay, not a mere demon, a shard of the soul of the demon lord, a being that would wipe the floor with a horseman of the apocalypse, whose soul has been broken and is being kept apart in a number of items. The princess having become one of the hosts, and accepted him as her patron. You still secure yourself a princess, and return from the dungeon to find the kingdom in the middle of a civil war. The situation kept worsening for the kingdom until the Marshall decided that the crown and royal blood could go to hell, he had managed to put his hands on a high level adventurer sworn to an absurdly powerful dragon, given her artifact-level armor which also served as a mind control device, and announced his claim to the throne. The Protector sent his paladin army against him, but they got toasted by the dragon so badly that only true resurrection could bring them back. Trying to decide what the proper course of action is, you hide the princess for a while, but she is discovered by the Protector and sent to him to be married.

The party is mostly T4 and T3, high levelled enough to take on either the Protector or Marshall, but dangerously low on magical items. They also own a town, but it is not fortified. The dragon and dragon rider are more than a threat and may very well wipe the entire group easily.
The Protector is an old friend of the Marshall and knows that he will join his cause should the protector be crowned king. The Protector himself does not care for power, however neither he, nor his order, nor the Marshall will bend the knee to a demon-lord possessed princess. The Protector is also a human supremacist.

The Marshall is ready to unite the kingdom through any necessary means. He is evil, not above mind controlling adventurers with powerful artifacts. He does believe to be the man best suited to lead the kingdom, but will bend the knee to someone he respects, and is marching his army towards the capitol.

The princess wants to be queen and desires power, a power that is rightfully hers, but she is under the orders of a demonic patron with very evil and very immediate plans from the kingdom. Should word get out about her state, quite a number of nobles would refuse to join her banner.

The demon lord is ready to leave his host if the princess desires it (she can be really easily convinced to) and if the party brings him to a certain place of great power. This, however, means furthering the plans of a being that the party can NOT take on should he be at full power, on top of whatever nefarious plans he may have.

What do?

as you reach the capitol to talk to the Protector about the whole "princess kidnapping" thingie, and get an audience, the Slayer of the team gets inside the room in which the princess is imprisoned, sees her crying, and goes absolutely ballistic, slicing the locked room open with his artifact level sword right in the middle of your negotiations, screaming at the top of his lungs for the paladins to try and smite evil him and see just bhow much they're ****ing up before he slices them to ribbons. The Slayer will not be persuaded to let the princess be married against her will and he is the most powerful fighter of the team. Quite a lot of resources are spent every fight to ward him against mind control effects to avoid a TPK.

(optional)

What do?

One day in your adventures, you are fighting an evil tyrant. As you are about to strike the final blow, he tears open a portal in space & time, hurling you into an alternate universe where you are totally unaware of their history.

You wake up in some strange ruins, where ancient tablets tell you a strange tale. You learn that the land suffers from a terrible cycle of life & undeath. Every 1000 years, a curse befalls the land and people begin to lose their sense of being. They become lifeless hollows who are incapable of anything other than attacking whatever may disturb their rest. You continue through this land, fending off these lifeless husks, until you reach a seaside town where you meet actual living beings. Something about this town disturbs you, though. The people are very suspicious of your presence. Most will not speak to you, instead keeping their heads down and continuing their daily chores, trying their hardest to ignore you.

Eventually, a priest and his two guards in blindingly bright full plate; carrying imposing halberds; faces covered in full helms, come out of the cathedral. The rickety priest hails your party and welcomes you to the hamlet of Meridia. He tells you a short history of the town and elaborates on the undead curse. They cycle began when man first broke their pact with the true god, Avakath. Foolish men began to doubt the all encompassing love of Avakath. They came up with their own gods, or worshiped other idols like the nature spirits, or cultural heroes who supposedly ascended to godhood through their pious deeds. In truth, the only way to avoid this curse is through extreme devotion to Avakath, through extreme sacrifice and self-flagellation. The source of the curse is desire, for it is desire which leaves us empty inside and causes us to consume endlessly.

The priest offers you food and lodging for the night. In the middle of the night, you are woken by screams coming from outside. A horde of undead is attacking the town. After your party dispatches them (assuming you haven't left or leave the town to die - see, I'm not railroading you!) the priest remarks that you are all obviously powerful warriors. He asks that you go into the mountains nearby, where there is a heretic wizard who has defied the teachings of Avakath. You must slay him, as he is practicing dark magicks that tear the very fabric of nature.

You arrive there and meet a young necromancer. He welcomes you warmly and asks if you came from Meridia. You are not the first band of adventurers who have came to slay him, but there is no need for that. He explains to you that he is researching a way to break the undead curse. He has found a way, but at a terrible cost. The only way to end the curse is to sever the hold of Avakath on the land. This is achieved by slaying the 4 great giants and using their hearts in a dark ritual which will end the cycle, but will also bring a terrible blight upon the land. Avakath will lose his grip on the world, which will have the side-effect of causing many forms of plant and animal life to cease living as well, for Avakath is the patron of life itself.

The necromancer also tells you that he once worked alongside the priest. They worked together on trying to find a way to end the undead curse. What they discovered is that the giant hearts can also be used to strengthen Avakath. Doing so will solidify his hold on humanity. They would all become his mindless slaves, working as a perfect hive mind. In this sense, it would cause all to become undead - but instead of mindless killers, they remain "living matter" and their consciousness exists in a dream-world utopia, and they will work solely to build monuments to the glory of Avakath. The necromancer left after learning this, because he did not think that forfeiting your free will was worth it.

After gathering the giant hearts (assuming you didn't just kill the necromancer/kill everyone at this point) you begin the ritual (either severing or strengthening Avakath) the unfathomable form of Avakath appears to you directly. He tells you that since you are from outside this reality, he is unable to mind-control you or make you undead. You adventurers are from outside this reality, and outside his grasp. If you choose to strengthen him, he will not only let you live (which would keep him interested - having creatures to speak to outside his hive mind) but his servants will give you all you desire. As many lovers as you wish, and entertainment you like, etc. He may also be able to find a way to send you back to your reality.

Do you help Avakath, or end the curse?

Segev
2016-02-02, 04:17 PM
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!I can't take this one seriously enough to make a real stab at it; it would depend on my PC how I'd react if I came across it in-game. Out of game, I'd be snickering or rolling my eyes, depending on how seriously I thought the


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.Heal him and try to talk him out of his deathwish, putting him on a suicide watch if needs be. Probably leaving him to NPCs who have more time and expertise (even though, metagame-wise, I know that's condemning him to death because NPCs are automatically incompetent in these situations).


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??Tell the prince, and pull the princess and him together to figure out what they're going to do about it. It's not my responsibility to expose it to the world, but it is my (paladin's) duty to tell the prince, so he can make a decision. And to encourage him not to make a rash one out of pique and hurt.

I would recommend going through with the marriage and trying to help the girl love her husband, because politics trump love in these things, but there's the possibility for it there (since at least one side IS in love).


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?Stop the mutiny and explore options calmly once the mutineers are put down. Though why the refugees are being kept in a position where they cannot provide for themselves baffles me; they should be forming their own fiefdom at this point, if there are really that many of them.


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?Morally and ethically, confession is the right thing to do. Deal with the adventure that comes from that.


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.Donate my kidney, and be heartbroken when she leaves me. She's the love of my life, after all.


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?Eye-roll at the obvious political commentary, then intervene because the only people hurting anybody are the violent mob. What are they, Menites (from IK)?


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.Improbable. Fascism is a form of socialism, and therefore the economy is probably not able to support this largesse.
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.More believable. The prosperity and word of sufficient food and education is probably part of this propaganda. N. Korean citizens are told they're the happiest, healthiest, best-fed people on Earth, after all.

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...So any number of modern dictatorships, with an extra façade of a megacorporation rather than just "the government."

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?Neither. I work my way into the "rebel" group and take it over by winning the hearts and minds of the freedom-loving individuals by demonstrating the logical fallacies inherent to their sexist ideologies and exposing their leadership for the corrupt just-like-their-enemies jerk he is, then help the newly refurbished resistance establish itself elsewhere. We can worry about what to do about the Evil Empire once we are better situated, because going to war seems less productive than building up our Good Empire.

icefractal
2016-02-02, 04:57 PM
You didn't specify a setting, which makes pretty big difference, so I'm going to go with D&D, since some of the examples imply it.

Theft-based economy:
And presumably the people the baker steals supplies from are also producing said supplies under threat from the king? This just sounds like a strange and unnecessarily oppressive form of state-controlled communism. Whether I'd try to overthrow it would depend on the same factors as any other oppressive regime - ability and consequences. Oh, and obviously steal food if they won't sell it to me - if I'm starving, I would do that regardless of the society being weird anyway.

Suicidal Bullywug:
If I can heal broken bones, do so. After that, if he remains suicidal then that's up to him. If I can't heal broken bones, nor get him to anyone that can, then put him out of his misery as requested.

Wedding Paladin:
This is a tough one - it depends on how much I (as said Paladin) value the ideal of 'Truth' compared to other ideals like 'Peace'. If I did tell the Prince, I would try my hardest to prevent him acting rashly on this.

Resistance group:
Prevent the mutiny. Tell said mutineers that if they're willing to have their allies starve in order to be fed better, they should **** off and go become mercenaries. This would be more of a dilemma if the alternative was just the non-warriors being miserable and unhealthy, and the result was significantly better performance from the warriors.

Accidental death:
Not a quagmire, the ethical option is obviously to confess. Not saying all characters I play would do that, but the good-aligned ones (and some others) would. Not that confessing necessarily means accepting arrest either, however.

Kidney failure:
Also not a quagmire - murdering your father for a kidney is pretty obviously not ethical.

Orc/Elf couple:
Shut down the mob. Reply to leader - "I destroy cultures all the time, like last week when I smashed the altar of those Dagon cultists and killed the giant fish monster that was an avatar of their god. Why would you expect different treatment?"

LE vs CE:
Support neither. If I can subvert one of the sides to not being evil, do so and then support them.

Coidzor
2016-02-02, 05:15 PM
1. Kill the king and conquer the city with my actually loyal force, institute reforms, view losing a thirds of the population as acceptable losses coming from such a bad start. Freeing the large number of hostages would at least win a lot of hearts and minds initially. Give the DM a swirly.

2. Heal it enough so it's not dying but not enough to be a threat. Talk to it. Let te party face work his mojo and have a new exotic member of our retinue. Give the DM a wedgie if he derails this.

3. Kill the knight in bed, let the prince decide the rest. Make a note to conquer that country and see if its princes are wiser than the princesses when it comes to marrying to legitimize my rule. Pants the DM.

4. Save the leader,don't be scrubs in the first place. Make the DM eat dog food.

5. Explain what happened, murder the guard if they try to do anything more stupid than just take us directly to the magistrate. Show the DM's baby photos to his crush.

6. Give her my kidney as a temporary measure while we grow her a new one. Take my kidney back afterward, regardless of her attempts to flee. Trick the DM into eating meat flavored gum.

7. Mindrape them into being peaceable and offering them the choice of going back to elf land, living peaceably, or being replaced by a nearly exact copy of themselves that doesn't care. If this is elf land, ask the DM why there was a living orc in the first place while giving him Indian burns.

8. Kill the leaders of both sides and conquer the whole kit and kaboodle with an army of angels. Then sit down with the DM and have an intervention, because we're his friends and we care about him and we see his calls for help.

OldTrees1
2016-02-02, 05:55 PM
Fun. But a bit too easy to answer(even if they are controversial questions).

Hungry with gold in a theft based economy:
Buy food. My gold is valuable for more than mere coinage and thus is a "trade"able asset. However I would not stick around for long since it is not a healthy society.

A bullywog requests death:
Inquire why they want to die (particularly looking for an alternate solution).
Upon learning there is no alternate, inquire how the bullywog wants to die.
Finally preform the death in a manner that both of us agree upon.

Cheating princess:
Why is she cheating? Will she credibly stop? If not, then will the Prince be willing to play King Arthur to her Queen Guinevere? If not, then the secret will be kept but a different alliance arrangement would be needed. The details would be arranged by the Princess and the Prince.

Starving resistance mutiny:
Intervene to halt the fighting (current leader surviving is coincidental). The two groups need each other so starving the elderly is not a solution. However, food volunteered from the refugees to the warriors will be accepted.

Accidental death:
Depends on the setting/city.
Unjust government -> Prevent arrest
Just but no mercy -> Disprove any attempts to convict
Just & Wise -> Take responsibility

Kidney failure:
1 death vs 1 poor health. While not morally obligatory, the self sacrificing donation would be the right thing to do.

Stoned to death:
They can keep their culture but they cannot keep their victims.

Tale of 2 tyrannies:
Fight the stronger tyranny(megacorp) without supporting the less powerful one(nomadic rebels).

BootStrapTommy
2016-02-02, 06:49 PM
The answer is to all of these is to kill them and loot their corpse. That's what any self-respecting PC would do.

icefractal
2016-02-02, 07:50 PM
The answer to all of these is to kill them and loot their corpse. That's what any self-respecting PC would do.:smalltongue: I thought about answering these from the perspective of a short-tempered mage I'm playing, but it would have involved a lot of "meh, not my problem" and "non-lethal Fireball, there, sorted".

hifidelity2
2016-02-03, 04:29 AM
The problem is the alignment (or similar) of my Character as these will change the answer

I shall answer based on 2 major PC’s I play in AD&D – one NE (Illusionist / Thief) and one CN (Ranger / Druid)

Theft-based economy:
And presumably the people the baker steals supplies from are also producing said supplies under threat from the king? This just sounds like a strange and unnecessarily oppressive form of state-controlled communism.

NE: who cares – Steal what I need a move on
CN: Assuming all the people are being controlled in a similar way by the king then I would steal but leave gold behind as fare payment – If the society does not see stealing as a “Crime” then its not my job to change it

Suicidal Bullywug:
If I can heal broken bones, do so. After that, if he remains suicidal then that's up to him. If I can't heal broken bones, nor get him to anyone that can, then put him out of his misery as requested.

NE: Kill him and take anything he has on him
CN: Heal him but is a cruel world out there and if that’s what he wants to do let him


Wedding Paladin:
This is a tough one - it depends on how much I (as said Paladin) value the ideal of 'Truth' compared to other ideals like 'Peace'. If I did tell the Prince, I would try my hardest to prevent him acting rashly on this.

NE: Tell the Paladin to keep out of it – it’s a political marriage. Then use the info to blackmail the Princess (and when queen) become the power behind the throne
CN: Not my Problem
If Paladin: I would not tell the Prince and this marriage will save many lives. I might challenge the knight though for breaking his vows

Resistance group:
Prevent the mutiny. Tell said mutineers that if they're willing to have their allies starve in order to be fed better, they should **** off and go become mercenaries. This would be more of a dilemma if the alternative was just the non-warriors being miserable and unhealthy, and the result was significantly better performance from the warriors.
NE: Encourage the mutiny and if the confusion take what I want. If it looks worth it take over
CN: Probably stop the mutiny


Accidental death:
Not a quagmire, the ethical option is obviously to confess. Not saying all characters I play would do that, but the good-aligned ones (and some others) would. Not that confessing necessarily means accepting arrest either, however.
NE: whatever!, who cares
CN: Tell the guy / guards it was not him but an unspecified urchin that did it

Kidney failure:
Also not a quagmire - murdering your father for a kidney is pretty obviously not ethical.
NE: Get a healer to fix them (AD&D) or find another match and take it from them
CN: Give them my Kidney


Orc/Elf couple:
Shut down the mob. Reply to leader - "I destroy cultures all the time, like last week when I smashed the altar of those Dagon cultists and killed the giant fish monster that was an avatar of their god. Why would you expect different treatment?"
NE: Pick up a few rocks and have some fun
CN: If that’s their society then let them get on with it


LE vs CE:
Support neither. If I can subvert one of the sides to not being evil, do so and then support them.
NE: Sell them out to the Corp
CN: Help the rebels – sounds more fun

goto124
2016-02-03, 05:42 AM
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??

A princess trapped in a political marriage? You know how the stories go - the princess manages to get away somehow, maybe even with the help of the PCs, and stuff happens to ensure everything eventually gets to a happy ending!

Satinavian
2016-02-03, 06:35 AM
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!Too stupid. A city can't work on a economy of theft. There is no moral question for something that can't even be imagined

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. Preventing suicide is deeply rooted in christian tradition. In most RPG- worlds with decidedly non-christian religions i would kill him/let him kill himself. Not really a moral problem.

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??Tell the prince (he deserves to know), but quietly. Then remind him of his duty to make this marriage work, no matter, what. Also remind the princess that she is threatening her life and the life and legicimaty of all possible children and the peace for her country and that this should never happen again. Maybe also propose that the knight in question is stationed somewhere far far away for the rest of his life.

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?Totally depends on the PCs, their ideals, chances, relations ... is a good moral dilemma

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?The right thing to do would be to go in jail. Most PCs still wouldn't do it, but might feel bad for the other poor guy.

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.Obviously own kidney. That is, if the PC is not meant to be utterly evil.

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?The moral thing would be helping the couple. But many PCs are exactly as racist as the culture they come from so might decide otherwise.

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?Two crappy cultures ... would probably choose the communist with the corporation name over the other. Actually i am quite sure, i would.

comicshorse
2016-02-03, 08:58 AM
Orc/Elf couple




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?

[/SPOILER]

Explain to the leader that you completely respect his culture and hope he will equally respect your culture, that say's that you should beat the hell out of people trying to murder innocent, unarmed people

Coidzor
2016-02-03, 11:37 PM
:smalltongue: I thought about answering these from the perspective of a short-tempered mage I'm playing, but it would have involved a lot of "meh, not my problem" and "non-lethal Fireball, there, sorted".

Non-lethal Fireball? Why on earth would you ever want one of those?

TheYell
2016-02-03, 11:46 PM
"If they try to heal him, they learn that he actually has a deathwish and will fight them to the death."

"Come back here and take what's coming to ya! I'll bite your legs off!"

icefractal
2016-02-03, 11:58 PM
Non-lethal Fireball? Why on earth would you ever want one of those?So you can shoot first and ask questions later (Speak with Dead being somewhat limited).

JoeJ
2016-02-04, 12:47 PM
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?

If the crowd can't be calmed, use whatever minimum force is required (and possible) to rescue the couple and escort them to a place where they'll be safe. If somebody in the crowd claims that I'm destroying their culture I calmly respond, "Yes, I am. This part of it, anyway."

Felyndiira
2016-02-04, 01:50 PM
Theft-Based Economy:
Unfortunately, I cannot take this scenario seriously. If this actually happened in-game, I would sidebar with the DM to figure out how such a system can operate without collapsing on itself. If the answer is "magic" or something, I would just leave the kingdom and find my quests in someplace a bit more sane (and where my WBL won't be constantly at risk from, well, everyone).

Suicidal Bullywug:
A character's beliefs on voluntary euthanasia is not relevant to the good-evil axis. A character can be good and respect a creature's right to request its own death; a character can also be good and believe that a creature has a duty to live out life even in suffering. Depending on the naivete, the social background, and the personal beliefs of my character, I can see them doing anything - quick death, or try to help them then apply self-defense when they attack. Alternatively, heal them, then have their world views shattered while they try to sort out their views on the ethics of voluntary euthanasia on their own. All of those are valid for good characters (and good paladins).

Wedding Paladin:
On an objective basis, hiding the princess's cheating will result in the greatest good. Most of my paladins with an okay WIS score will attempt to cover for the princess; he will seek other ways to try to keep the peace and help the prince find peace first, of course, but this is exactly why the paladin code does not guard against lying.

The princess, of course, will also get the standard banal 2 hour lecture(tm). If anything, I will take steps to remind the princess of the position that she's in, and the horrors that will happen if she keeps on taking the selfish path. I will also try to watch over the relationship for a while if possible, just to ensure peace to the best of my abilities.

Even if the GM declared outright that a paladin can fall for lying or hiding the truth, I will do this regardless. Because peace is more important than shiny holy powers.

Resistance Group:
Stopping the mutiny is pretty much going to be the standard good answer here. The mutineer's decision is a selfish one that is threatening the stability of the group; he's acting in an evil manner here. I will do everything I can to talk him down and ensure that the situation doesn't come to blows, of course.

Accidental Death/Kidney Failure:
Confessing is easily the morally right option here for the first one. For the second one, under (almost) no circumstance would killing your father to harvest his organs EVER be the right thing to do.

Orc/Elf Couple:
If we're still talking about moral quandaries, then "destroying their culture" is the right thing to do. It's the same with evil cultists that murder people; culture doesn't make people above reproach for something like a lynch mob. (Objectively, of course. Most of my actual characters, good or not, will likely have biases that color their world view in some way, and thus may react differently to this situation. They won't be morally justified, but we are all humans after all. Or humanoid. Or weird other XP-giving race.)

LE vs CE:
If the big ol' tyrant empire isn't trying to build an World-Ending Device, then I have a selection of good characters that would be totally okay with them. The World-Ending Device makes the first part of this a bit silly; of course you're going to oppose that as a good character. It's totally possible to believe in Totalitarianism and still be good, but world-ending though?

Also, this isn't a binary decision. I think a lot of good characters built on modern values would support neither of them. Personally, if you removed the World-Ending Device from the empire, then it would really just be a somewhat stricter form of Ye Old Good Kingdom (with a king that is possibly a bit more selfish). As for the latter, the moral decision would already be to not support these people, either; to change them from within, or do something to ensure a much better treatment for the women. The weird power-hungry chaos-spreading leader just makes this that much more apparent.

Douche
2016-02-04, 02:56 PM
Theft-Based Economy:
Unfortunately, I cannot take this scenario seriously. If this actually happened in-game, I would sidebar with the DM to figure out how such a system can operate without collapsing on itself. If the answer is "magic" or something, I would just leave the kingdom and find my quests in someplace a bit more sane (and where my WBL won't be constantly at risk from, well, everyone).

You can't just leave. You're starving to death.

The system operates on a long tradition of thievery. They worship a god of theft, and actually obtain most of their resources by stealing from a neighboring city. Other than that, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from other countries.

Their king is actually a figurehead to the demon of gluttony. It is corpulent and slug-like, and has the power to instill an unquenchable avarice in whomever it meets.



A bullywog requests death:
Inquire why they want to die (particularly looking for an alternate solution).
Upon learning there is no alternate, inquire how the bullywog wants to die.
Finally preform the death in a manner that both of us agree upon.

He wants to die because he has lost his business and his wife left him

Cheating princess:
Why is she cheating? Will she credibly stop? If not, then will the Prince be willing to play King Arthur to her Queen Guinevere? If not, then the secret will be kept but a different alliance arrangement would be needed. The details would be arranged by the Princess and the Prince.

The prince will not forgive. This kingdom is modeled after the reign of King Henry VIII. Any infidelity to the heir apparent will lead to death, no question.

Upon questioning the princess, it is revealed that she is a floozy and just likes to drink and have fun. She is not interested in being queen, nor is she very concerned with the consequences of her actions - including any wars that may result from her affairs

The knight is terrified of you and will do anything to make sure he won't be beheaded for this.

Accidental death:
Depends on the setting/city.
Unjust government -> Prevent arrest
Just but no mercy -> Disprove any attempts to convict
Just & Wise -> Take responsibility

As stated, you are going to go to prison for this accident. There is no way around that. Resisting or killing the city guard will only probably lead to a heavier sentence. (unless you escape the city)

The city is quite just, but under the options you provided, I suppose it would be "Just but no mercy"



Stop the mutiny and explore options calmly once the mutineers are put down. Though why the refugees are being kept in a position where they cannot provide for themselves baffles me; they should be forming their own fiefdom at this point, if there are really that many of them.

The refugees do try to provide for themselves. The society they've formed is deep in the forest because they are constantly being hunted by the evil empire, where the non-warriors build huts out of trees & such, and do whatever farming they are able to. This mutiny actually takes place during the winter, though, so food is very scarce.

(I got this scenario straight out of the movie Defiance. It's actually a great film)

Improbable. Fascism is a form of socialism, and therefore the economy is probably not able to support this largesse. More believable. The prosperity and word of sufficient food and education is probably part of this propaganda. N. Korean citizens are told they're the happiest, healthiest, best-fed people on Earth, after all.
So any number of modern dictatorships, with an extra façade of a megacorporation rather than just "the government."
Neither. I work my way into the "rebel" group and take it over by winning the hearts and minds of the freedom-loving individuals by demonstrating the logical fallacies inherent to their sexist ideologies and exposing their leadership for the corrupt just-like-their-enemies jerk he is, then help the newly refurbished resistance establish itself elsewhere. We can worry about what to do about the Evil Empire once we are better situated, because going to war seems less productive than building up our Good Empire.

There are evil dictatorships that are not N. Korea. I'm not going to get political about this, but there have been dictatorships which provided great educations and didn't starve their citizens. In the case of this fictional evil regime, they believe that educating their citizens in STEM fields (not philosophy or some crap that will create free-thinkers to start a revolution) will strengthen their country and help them achieve world domination

Ya know, I didn't think people would feel so strongly about the woman-hating rebels, lol. Why is everyone trying to impose their beliefs on these guys? What about their man-love culture? Do you want to abolish that too? How can you make them respect women and not be pederasts at the same time?

Furthermore, overcoming sexism isn't something that you're going to achieve in a single heart-warming musical number, or something...

Segev
2016-02-04, 03:07 PM
You can't just leave. You're starving to death.

The system operates on a long tradition of thievery. They worship a god of theft, and actually obtain most of their resources by stealing from a neighboring city. Other than that, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from other countries.

Their king is actually a figurehead to the demon of gluttony. It is corpulent and slug-like, and has the power to instill an unquenchable avarice in whomever it meets.

Yeah, this sounds less like a town and more like a dungeon crawl with a boss to defeat.

Felyndiira
2016-02-04, 03:07 PM
You can't just leave. You're starving to death.

The system operates on a long tradition of thievery. They worship a god of theft, and actually obtain most of their resources by stealing from a neighboring city. Other than that, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from other countries.

Their king is actually a figurehead to the demon of gluttony. It is corpulent and slug-like, and has the power to instill an unquenchable avarice in whomever it meets.

I see. Then this is not really a moral quandary, either. There's no reason to not oppose a system created by a demon that wants to mess up other people. it's not even a naturally occurring tradition, but an artificial one that is reeking of extra-planar evil.

Unless if you mean if a good person would follow the tradition of stealing in order to feed themselves, in which case the answer is probably a no, unless if I can truly ensure that the other party would not suffer excessively for it AND that I have a greater purpose in participating in these shenanigans. Like, for example, surviving for long enough to enact a plan against the demon that I'm reasonably sure would work and create better living conditions.

But on a more personal level, I honestly can't see myself playing a good character that comes out of that setting and isn't an adventurer looking into the place from outside. Anyone who grew up in that kind of setting will probably be at least neutral to have survived for long enough to be able to choose paladin-hood in the first place.

Douche
2016-02-04, 03:29 PM
I see. Then this is not really a moral quandary, either. There's no reason to not oppose a system created by a demon that wants to mess up other people. it's not even a naturally occurring tradition, but an artificial one that is reeking of extra-planar evil.

Unless if you mean if a good person would follow the tradition of stealing in order to feed themselves, in which case the answer is probably a no, unless if I can truly ensure that the other party would not suffer excessively for it AND that I have a greater purpose in participating in these shenanigans. Like, for example, surviving for long enough to enact a plan against the demon that I'm reasonably sure would work and create better living conditions.

But on a more personal level, I honestly can't see myself playing a good character that comes out of that setting and isn't an adventurer looking into the place from outside. Anyone who grew up in that kind of setting will probably be at least neutral to have survived for long enough to be able to choose paladin-hood in the first place.

You're not from this city. You were travelling and arrived here.

And yeah, hahaha... This is a ridiculous scenario. I only added these details to attempt to make sense of it cuz of your post, lol.

Anyway, the society still worshiped the god of thieves before the demon arrived. It was their culture that attracted him.

Pyrous
2016-02-04, 03:45 PM
The prince will not forgive. This kingdom is modeled after the reign of King Henry VIII. Any infidelity to the heir apparent will lead to death, no question.

Upon questioning the princess, it is revealed that she is a floozy and just likes to drink and have fun. She is not interested in being queen, nor is she very concerned with the consequences of her actions - including any wars that may result from her affairs

The knight is terrified of you and will do anything to make sure he won't be beheaded for this.


So the prince and princess don't care about the well-being of their subjects to the point of risking war. They are both evil. I kill them both. Now I'm a common enemy and the kingdoms will ally to hunt me down.

CharonsHelper
2016-02-04, 03:45 PM
If the crowd can't be calmed, use whatever minimum force is required (and possible) to rescue the couple and escort them to a place where they'll be safe. If somebody in the crowd claims that I'm destroying their culture I calmly respond, "Yes, I am. This part of it, anyway."

Yeah - not all cultures should be protected. Some just plain suck.

Segev
2016-02-04, 03:54 PM
Yeah - not all cultures should be protected. Some just plain suck.

And others are outright poisonous, destroying those who adhere to them and only sustaining themselves by feeding off of victims to make up for what they take from their own. When they run out of victims, they consume themselves from within until there's nothing left.

CharonsHelper
2016-02-04, 03:58 PM
And others are outright poisonous, destroying those who adhere to them and only sustaining themselves by feeding off of victims to make up for what they take from their own. When they run out of victims, they consume themselves from within until there's nothing left.

I take it that's a more detailed paraphrasing of "...eventually you run out of other people's money."? :smallbiggrin:

Douche
2016-02-04, 04:01 PM
And others are outright poisonous, destroying those who adhere to them and only sustaining themselves by feeding off of victims to make up for what they take from their own. When they run out of victims, they consume themselves from within until there's nothing left.

The elf men are actually deeply insecure about orcs taking their women. They see it as an insult to their manhood and it makes them feel inadequate.

However, intervening in this scenario will cause the entire town to turn hostile towards you - including the other orcs who are subjugated.


So the prince and princess don't care about the well-being of their subjects to the point of risking war. They are both evil. I kill them both. Now I'm a common enemy and the kingdoms will ally to hunt me down.

Good idea, Dr. Manhattan!

CharonsHelper
2016-02-04, 04:06 PM
The elf men are actually deeply insecure about orcs taking their women. They see it as an insult to their manhood and it makes them feel inadequate.

However, intervening in this scenario will cause the entire town to turn hostile towards you - including the other orcs who are subjugated.

That sucks - but you should still draw a line in the sand. To quote the kite/key guy "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.".

Segev
2016-02-04, 04:11 PM
I take it that's a more detailed paraphrasing of "...eventually you run out of other people's money."? :smallbiggrin:While I do subscribe to that philosophy, no, that is not to which I was referring. As it's applicable by anybody looking at cultures for signs of harmful traits, I will not identify the ones I specifically think are so, as this isn't the thread for it. ;)

Or, in professor-speak, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. ~_^


The elf men are actually deeply insecure about orcs taking their women. They see it as an insult to their manhood and it makes them feel inadequate.

However, intervening in this scenario will cause the entire town to turn hostile towards you - including the other orcs who are subjugated.

Nonsense. Everybody knows all elves are female!

Whyrocknodie
2016-02-04, 04:33 PM
They are starving and come into a city with plenty of gold. But here's the thing; the cities entire economy operates on theft!
Steal the food. Leave town.



Just then, a bullywog comes crashing to the ground, shattering all his bones. He begs for an end to his misery.
Kill it.



On the day of the wedding, it is revealed that the foreign princess has been cheating on the prince with one of her knights.
Conceal the evidence.



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.
Slaughter warrior douche immediately. Attempt to reason with his replacement.



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.
Make a point of avoiding knocking over scaffolding in the future. Lucky that fool was there.



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.
Mourn her death from kidney failure.



The couple is being strung up, upside down, by their legs over the front door to the hall. People begin throwing rocks at them.
Release the couple. Unlikely to hear whatever 'interjection' the crowd has.



Propaganda dictatorship versus misogynists.
Side with the mega-corporation. Their propaganda can be undone, presumably the other guys are going on some kind of twisted tradition which will be harder to undo.

OldTrees1
2016-02-04, 05:11 PM
Well, I did say they were too easy didn't I. Let's see these amendments.


He wants to die because he has lost his business and his wife left him
Not really an answer. If it is merely hopelessness, then provide hope. If it is merely grief and sorrow, then provide comfort and happiness. If they desire death as an end in itself, then provide death.


The prince will not forgive. This kingdom is modeled after the reign of King Henry VIII. Any infidelity to the heir apparent will lead to death, no question.

Upon questioning the princess, it is revealed that she is a floozy and just likes to drink and have fun. She is not interested in being queen, nor is she very concerned with the consequences of her actions - including any wars that may result from her affairs

The knight is terrified of you and will do anything to make sure he won't be beheaded for this.
Well this is the hardest of the possible cases.

War will reignite regardless of what I do since it is too late to pull the "Just trust me Prince, arrange an alternate peace arrangement". So keep silent but have the knight stationed to chastely prevent the princess from cheating for as long as possible. They are unlikely to survive the next time either is caught.


As stated, you are going to go to prison for this accident. There is no way around that. Resisting or killing the city guard will only probably lead to a heavier sentence. (unless you escape the city)

The city is quite just, but under the options you provided, I suppose it would be "Just but no mercy"
While the most morally superogatory action would be to take responsibility, I think I would instead let the innocent go to jail and then disprove the false allegations. Thus the innocent would be in jail, but only for a time before released.

Separately I would do what was needed to atone for the accidental death I caused.

Segev
2016-02-04, 05:17 PM
If the prince won't forgive, even after time to cool off and think about it, then he isn't really in love with her. He's just lusting after her.

And he's also not really all that loyal to his kingdom, given that the peace brokered by this marriage is so important to its well-being.

OldTrees1
2016-02-04, 06:45 PM
If the prince won't forgive, even after time to cool off and think about it, then he isn't really in love with her. He's just lusting after her.

And he's also not really all that loyal to his kingdom, given that the peace brokered by this marriage is so important to its well-being.

Agreed. However you have 2 armies ready to harm the civilians of 2 nations if either of the 2 royalty messes this peace up. With both of the 2 royalty being unreasonable and it being the day of the wedding, what can be done?

Pyrous
2016-02-04, 07:28 PM
Good idea, Dr. Manhattan!

Dude, I'm not an all-mighty being murdering a vigilante to cover up for my terrorist party member, nor I'm just following orders so I can end a war, even though it is my goal.

I am the one killing people, and I actually want everyone knowing that I did it (although not why). Also, I'm targeting the actual guys risking war over petty reasons, instead of innocent civilians. Therefore you can't even make an analogy with Ozymandias, Rorschach is right out because I actually think about the consequences of my actions, and the other two don't even have the power nor chance to influence internacional politics.

goto124
2016-02-04, 07:31 PM
Wedding Paladin:
but this is exactly why the paladin code does not guard against lying.

Even if the GM declared outright that a paladin can fall for lying or hiding the truth, I will do this regardless. Because peace is more important than shiny holy powers.

Okay, why did the GM make you choose between 'war' and 'lying' when 'lying' means 'lose your class abilities'?

With all the information (the princess is highly irresponsible for someone who can change entire countries, the prince is really emotional and not much better than the princess, etc), the party would probably try to get a potion of Glibness to convince the princess to turn over a new leaf, or hope for a miracle, or figure that due to the circumstances, war is inevitable anyway since the DM seems to want it, and starts preparing food/shelter/equipment/spells/connections/information before the war actually starts.

@Pyrous: The killing of (or even the attempt to kill) the princess and prince will spark a war, and it's your fault for killing them this time. Save the effort, go prepare for the war that will happen anyway.

JoeJ
2016-02-04, 07:44 PM
The elf men are actually deeply insecure about orcs taking their women. They see it as an insult to their manhood and it makes them feel inadequate.

I guess it sucks to be them, then.


However, intervening in this scenario will cause the entire town to turn hostile towards you - including the other orcs who are subjugated.

If I can't get the couple away from the people who want to murder them without fighting my way out, then that's what I'll do. If some of the townspeople get killed in the process, their deaths are their own fault. They decided that someone was going to be killed; I'm simply making sure that it isn't going to be me or this innocent couple.

Pyrous
2016-02-04, 08:04 PM
@Pyrous: The killing of (or even the attempt to kill) the princess and prince will spark a war, and it's your fault for killing them this time. Save the effort, go prepare for the war that will happen anyway.

This is for sure because the DM(Douche Master) is trying his best to force a "ethical quagmire" to the party when there is an obviously wrong side. And it seems that he will twist it until I fall whatever the choice I make. As I will fall anyway, at least I get to kill a couple in cold blood an expose their severed heads for anyone to see. And if the DM forces the kingdoms to start a war when it's known that a third party **** them both, the other players have a chance to take the hint and not show up for the next session.

If you have the opportunity to turn a lose-lose into a win-win, the correct choice is to do it, even if it is OOC.

goto124
2016-02-04, 08:06 PM
the DM(Douche Master) is trying his best to force a "ethical quagmire" to the party when both sides are obviously wrong.

FTFY :smalltongue:


And it seems that he will twist it until I fall whatever the choice I make. As I will fall anyway

The worst part of creating ethical quagmires with a class that loses abilities on not being Holy and Good. The situation is actually quite realistic!

The paladin should, at least, pray to their patron god and ask what to do.

BootStrapTommy
2016-02-04, 08:14 PM
There's no ethical quandary if you just murder everyone as a rule.

Go big or go home!

Pyrous
2016-02-04, 08:25 PM
FTFY :smalltongue:

That's exactly what I meant. I thought that was clear enough.:smallcool:


The paladin should, at least, pray to their patron god and ask what to do.

I assume that the "ethical quagmire" for the paladin only triggers after his god say: "Dude, you should know this already" or something like that.

Edit: and anyway, if you are a paladin and have the opportunity to stop a war over petty reasons, you do it. Even if you lose your class abilities. And after that you say: "Totally worth it", and call it a day. A GOOD day.

Felyndiira
2016-02-05, 09:15 AM
Okay, why did the GM make you choose between 'war' and 'lying' when 'lying' means 'lose your class abilities'?

With all the information (the princess is highly irresponsible for someone who can change entire countries, the prince is really emotional and not much better than the princess, etc), the party would probably try to get a potion of Glibness to convince the princess to turn over a new leaf, or hope for a miracle, or figure that due to the circumstances, war is inevitable anyway since the DM seems to want it, and starts preparing food/shelter/equipment/spells/connections/information before the war actually starts.

It looks like we agree with each other that lying (and teaching the princess to be more responsible) is the best choice if it could mean sustainable peace for the kingdom. I'm not entirely sure what our disagreement is :smallsmile:.

Maybe I shouldn't have included the additional bit, though that is simply saying that I believe that concealing the truth is the right decision - so much that it's worth something as drastic as breaking a paladin's oath for the best chance to sustain peace.

EDIT: Pyrous said it better than I did.

Slipperychicken
2016-02-05, 09:58 AM
Thief Town: I tell my GM to go easy on the drugs, then I call it a night. He's clearly high enough that we'll be better off watching a movie or something instead of playing tabletop. After he calms down, I'll ask him what he was smoking, and where I can get some.

Broken Bullywug: He's in a lot of pain, so his judgement is impaired. I'll heal him up and tell him he can make the choice when he's back to his senses. If he recovers and is still serious about it, then I'll even hand him some rope to hang himself with.

Starving Soldiers: I let them work it out. It's not my decision.

Cheating Princess: I report the incident to the prince and no-one else. The ball's in his court now, he can handle this sensibly if he wants to. If anyone gives me flak over it, I tell them that it's not my place to make that decision.

Accidental Death: I ain't going to jail. Let the guards figure it out.

Kidney Girl: I can get a new lover. My dad and my kidneys are not replaceable, however. She only gets my kidney if I'm already married to her. If she even suggests killing my dad, marital status be damned, I'll dump her right then and there.

Interracial Marriage: That couple's dumb enough that they'll die no matter what I do. No amount of heroics will save them from their lack of social awareness. Still, I'll rescue them, tell the leader to suck an egg, drop them off outside of town, and call them idiots. I'll pick up anything they want from their homes and escort them to a safe place, since they can't go back to their village.

Mean Dictator Corp: Too long, didn't read it.

Telonius
2016-02-05, 10:18 AM
I made these up in a different thread (not mine), but everyone seems to be ignoring me... How would you guys react in these wacky scenarios?

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?

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?

1. Theft-based economy: Walk down the street juggling gold pieces. Since gold is clearly worthless in this society (having no inherent value) nobody will want to steal it. Consider starting a banking business for foreigners, as nobody here would ever consider robbing it to be a worthwhile pursuit.

2. Injured bullywog: Grant his wish, and go through his pockets for loose change.

3. Cheating Princess: Ugh, Paladin. She's not married yet, and hasn't broken any vows. So, none of the Paladin's business for now. Impress upon them both that the Knight may meet an unfortunate accident if this continues after the wedding. Then, arrange for said Knight to be transferred quietly back to her father's kingdom right after the ceremony.

4. Tell the leader to agree. Next day, distribute an additional 10% (by volume, not weight) to the warriors. Or an extra 10% worth of prunes.

5. Accidental death: Odd premise. This situation would usually be deliberate. Anyway, intimidate the guards. Say that you saw the whole thing, and that the guy didn't do anything at all to cause this. Which means it's the guard's fault. How could they possibly have been so careless to allow such a dangerous situation to occur? Did they not care that a worker was going up in substandard equipment? Look, we understand that you're busy. But let this guy go, and this can stay quiet. Then, when they've left, look at the guy and say, "We know what really happened. No worries, we promise not to tell. But we think it would be nice for you to give us a favor afterwards." (Note that nowhere in this did you actually tell a lie).

6. Kidney donation: Another odd premise, since about 75% of adventurers are orphans. Anyway, give the kidney. Regeneration magic is usually a thing.

7. Mixed marriage: "Look, we understand what you're trying to do, but this really isn't the way to solve the problem. Shouldn't the penalty be burning at the stake at the next full moon?" Use the interim to smuggle the lovers out/ prepare some illusion magic / give them Fire Resistance / arrange a "miracle" / learn some awful secret about the elf leader. Gain favors and leverage from the lovers and/or the elf leader.

8. Evil Megacorporation vs Evil Hillbillies: Smuggle the hillbillies' best warriors into the megacorporation's town, then let 'em loose. With any luck a big part of both problems will solve each other. With that going on as a distraction, infiltrate the Evil Fortress and destroy the Doomsday Device. With the city on fire, death in the streets, the Doomsday Device in ruins, and Faceless Corporation's board of directors dead or on the run, take to the streets. "Our leaders have failed!" Offer to help out as "rebuilding consultants" for a nice price.

Then, return back to the Hillbillies' base, which is now (most likely) female-majority. "Our leaders have failed!" Offer to help out as "educators" for a nice price.

Segev
2016-02-05, 11:22 AM
Agreed. However you have 2 armies ready to harm the civilians of 2 nations if either of the 2 royalty messes this peace up. With both of the 2 royalty being unreasonable and it being the day of the wedding, what can be done?

If the kids refuse to work it out and get married in a way that will promote the peace, I grab their parents, who actually want this alliance/peace treaty to work, explain the situation, and impress upon them that they have two choices: be petty idiots who plunge their kingdoms into war because one has a spiteful brat of a son and the other an irresponsibly horny daughter, or they can be more grown-up than their children and find some way to make it work. Possibly in more diplomatic language, since I'm a Paladin (in this scenario) and that's a class skill.

Telonius
2016-02-05, 12:10 PM
Another option on the Cheating Princess... talk to the prince. Ask him if he really loves her and wants her to be happy, no matter what. Break the news that she's not going to be happy if she marries him, because she loves someone else the same way he loves her. (Don't say who yet). "If you tear her away from her love, she will hate you forever." See how he reacts. If it's murderous, nothing you can do but wash your hands of it. If not, offer a way out. There needs to be a royal wedding to fix this? Then make sure there's a royal wedding.

Have the prince adopt the knight as his heir. They get married, the prince impresses the whole kingdom for his wisdom generosity and mercy, and who knows, maybe even some romantic hottie from another kingdom is on hand to see this and swoon.

(If his parents or the Grand Vizier object, point out that this also leaves the Prince free to marry somebody else, and further increase the kingdom's power).

Satinavian
2016-02-05, 12:44 PM
That would not be a marriage between the two kingdoms. And instead of a royal marriage declaring a lower noble of the enemy to heir ? That is insane and a recipe for instant war. Or civil war.

Instead force the two people to marry as it is their duty as royal heirs. They don't have to love each other. Make it clear to the princess, that the alternative to marriage is imprisonment and the alternative to fidelity is death. Make it clear to the prince that the alternative to marriage is abandoning the right to inherit to make room for someone more sensible. (asuming agnatic succession laws, otherwise the scenario doesn't make sense)

Vizzerdrix
2016-02-05, 03:10 PM
1- give the baker a hand for the day in exchange for letting me pocket a few rolls. Maybe see if he can give me a few pointers on being more light fingered. And I'd sleep better at night knowing noone has any use for my money so they won't steal it.

2- I'd remind him that if he dies, she wins. Then assist him in getting his sweet revenge on the business and woman that he lost.

3- put it to a vote. If people are willing to take that chance on the soldiers being able to bring in more, then that is their choice. Maybe eat the resulting dead to make food go longer too. Sort of a Donner Party thing.

4- I'd have a sit down with their folks. This will more than likely result in at least the knights death but oh well. Eggs, omlettes, etc.

5- blame goes to the shoddy construction. Hand the teamsters!!!

6-No ring, no organs. NEXT!

7-hmm... Smash the dudes face in with a hammer. If anyone doesn't get the picture, do it again.

8- Only real option is to stop the dooms day weapon. Don't matter much otherwise what you feel.

Coidzor
2016-02-06, 05:28 AM
You can't just leave. You're starving to death.

The system operates on a long tradition of thievery. They worship a god of theft, and actually obtain most of their resources by stealing from a neighboring city. Other than that, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from other countries.

Their king is actually a figurehead to the demon of gluttony. It is corpulent and slug-like, and has the power to instill an unquenchable avarice in whomever it meets.

:smallconfused: So the ethical quagmire is what the players themselves do with a DM at their mercy after they find out he gave them an unbeatable BBEG who turns their characters into NPCs upon encountering them?

Meta.


Have the prince adopt the knight as his heir. They get married, the prince impresses the whole kingdom for his wisdom generosity and mercy, and who knows, maybe even some romantic hottie from another kingdom is on hand to see this and swoon.

Pull the other one.

OldTrees1
2016-02-06, 11:54 AM
:smallconfused: So the ethical quagmire is what the players themselves do with a DM at their mercy after they find out he gave them an unbeatable BBEG who turns their characters into NPCs upon encountering them?

Meta.

Unbeatable? Unquenchable avarice would not stop everyone from killing the king. At least one person so afflicted would want to steal the king's heart (or other vital organ). So first fill your belly (the question) and then go steal the king's brain.

Douche
2016-02-06, 12:43 PM
Okay, why did the GM make you choose between 'war' and 'lying' when 'lying' means 'lose your class abilities'?

With all the information (the princess is highly irresponsible for someone who can change entire countries, the prince is really emotional and not much better than the princess, etc), the party would probably try to get a potion of Glibness to convince the princess to turn over a new leaf, or hope for a miracle, or figure that due to the circumstances, war is inevitable anyway since the DM seems to want it, and starts preparing food/shelter/equipment/spells/connections/information before the war actually starts.

@Pyrous: The killing of (or even the attempt to kill) the princess and prince will spark a war, and it's your fault for killing them this time. Save the effort, go prepare for the war that will happen anyway.


This is for sure because the DM(Douche Master) is trying his best to force a "ethical quagmire" to the party when there is an obviously wrong side. And it seems that he will twist it until I fall whatever the choice I make. As I will fall anyway, at least I get to kill a couple in cold blood an expose their severed heads for anyone to see. And if the DM forces the kingdoms to start a war when it's known that a third party **** them both, the other players have a chance to take the hint and not show up for the next session.

If you have the opportunity to turn a lose-lose into a win-win, the correct choice is to do it, even if it is OOC.

I am not trying to force you to fail. I'm asking you to choose between being a bro and telling the prince that he's being played for a fool, or be a bad bro and don't tell him. The threat of war is just there to add to the stakes

Just ask yourself: what would a true bro do in this situation. You will recall the the original parameters said the prince made you his best man and really trusts you


Another option on the Cheating Princess... talk to the prince. Ask him if he really loves her and wants her to be happy, no matter what. Break the news that she's not going to be happy if she marries him, because she loves someone else the same way he loves her. (Don't say who yet). "If you tear her away from her love, she will hate you forever." See how he reacts. If it's murderous, nothing you can do but wash your hands of it. If not, offer a way out. There needs to be a royal wedding to fix this? Then make sure there's a royal wedding.

Have the prince adopt the knight as his heir. They get married, the prince impresses the whole kingdom for his wisdom generosity and mercy, and who knows, maybe even some romantic hottie from another kingdom is on hand to see this and swoon.

(If his parents or the Grand Vizier object, point out that this also leaves the Prince free to marry somebody else, and further increase the kingdom's power).

You want the prince to be a cuckhold? You get executed too for suggesting such a silly solution.

Tvtyrant
2016-02-06, 01:20 PM
I am not trying to force you to fail. I'm asking you to choose between being a bro and telling the prince that he's being played for a fool, or be a bad bro and don't tell him. The threat of war is just there to add to the stakes

Just ask yourself: what would a true bro do in this situation. You will recall the the original parameters said the prince made you his best man and really trusts you



You want the prince to be a cuckhold? You get executed too for suggesting such a silly solution.
I have the rest of the party infiltrate both royal courts, wait until the wedding day, then kill everyone on both royal sides except the prince. Making him a double king is being a bro, right?

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-06, 02:13 PM
1) Immediate problem first: you steal some bread so you don't starve. You don't have options if the baker doesn't accept money.

Then, if you're actually powerful, you can consider bringing change to this messed up system. If you're not, you get the Hell out of there and beg the nearest order of paladins to purge this place.

2) If no immediate way to heal the bullywug exists, you just obey his wishes. If you are a doctor and/or have means of healing it, you're obliged to try to save its life. Then you kill him in self-defense.

3) "Oh goddamnit Guinevere, not again!"

The paladin brings both the girl and the knight before the prince and explains the situation, trying to reason with him. I mean, this guy chose the pally as his best man, surely his word should count for something.

If it doesn't, the paladin points out the marriage has not taken effect yet and technically no crimes have been committed. The only effect this has is annulment of engagement. The princess and the knight are sent back to their homeland while the paladin tries to convince his pal the prince to make peace in some other way.

4) You step between the leader and the mutineers and try to reason this out. The first thing to do is ask the elders if they would just kindly bugger off to the woods to die. May sound cruel, but in many societies facing scarcity it was actually expected of people past productive age to sacrifice themselves for the younger folks. If the elderly volunteer, you point out there's no reason for the warriors to fight. If the leader protests, you tell him to get his hippie communist head off his ass.

If the elders don't volunteer, you point out to the mutineers that this rebel gig has still been going fine under this leader, and losing him might lose them more than a few extra rations would gain. So the food problem is better solved by working together on the next target, rather than infighting.

5) You explain it was an accident and the guy freaking out is not guilty, accepting any legal repercussions for negligence as long as they're proportional. (Fines and jail are fine, being hanged for an accident is not, f.ex.)

6) Obviously give her my kidney. I only need one. Or I could just ASK my father for one, you know. No condition in the scenario actually necessitates killing him, he only needs one too.

7) since the couple were happily heading for the town hall, everything suggests orc/elf relations are legal in these parts. (It would be implausible for the couple to be so open about it if it was legally ostracized.) So this leader and his folks are most likely an illegal lynch mob. So the answer is tot tell them to cut it off, alarm the authorities if you can, and use force to drive them away and save their victims if necessary.

8) Bring me my Nazi Stormtrooper uniform so I can kill some filthy barbarians.

Then, after having built up a reputation and resources in service of my fascist nation, I make a military coup with my brothers in arms and appropriate wealth and weaponry of the megacorporation. After enjoying a brief tenure as a militarist autocrat, I slowly cede power to the populace.

---

I'll note that most of these situations are not true ethical dilemmas, in that they have clear-cut right answers in many common ethical and legal systems. Situation 5 is completely black and white. So are situations 2 and 6, all their complications are of diabolus ex machina variety, where an unrelated bad thing happens which you would not normally be able to see going in.

goto124
2016-02-06, 09:45 PM
I am not trying to force you to fail. I'm asking you [snip] You get executed too for suggesting such a silly solution.

I was about to get angry, when I saw your username.

Then I laughed out loud, IRL :smallbiggrin:

Lorsa
2016-02-07, 11:07 AM
I made these up in a different thread (not mine), but everyone seems to be ignoring me... How would you guys react in these wacky scenarios?

You mean if I were playing in a campaign where they came up or if I, myself, were actually in them?

The latter I have a hard time answering, as most of them are taking place far outside of reality, which, incidentally, affects my reaction in the former case.

Most of these scenarios are just too wacky, and would feel like the GM was strongarming me into a Moral Dilemma (TM). Except they choice are just... too much to be interesting. A good ethical quagmire has shades of grey, and is difficult due to the subtleties. These ones are not subtle at all, they're in-your-face dilemmas, which all seem too forced and unrealistic to me (wich a few exceptions).

Douche
2016-02-08, 08:42 AM
I was about to get angry, when I saw your username.

Then I laughed out loud, IRL :smallbiggrin:

You think I'm kidding (hehehe)?!? The prince is a very proud man. He's going to execute 2 people just to make sure no one thinks he's a cuckhold. Do you know what that would do to his rule? His legacy? I wouldn't put a PC in a position like that though, where he'd get executed and be powerless to stop it. It would be put on the table but I'd make it easy to persuade him not to kill the paladin.

Do you guys even know about King Henry VIII? The dude cared so much about his legacy that he executed 2 of his wives, told the Pope to screw himself by leaving the church, and went to war with France 3 times... as a result, I don't get why you people are injecting the morality of a 5th grader into this Prince's life. "He should be nice and love the princess even though she will make him a laughing stock among his people and all the other kings in the land! Let him be known as the cuckhold prince!"

Hence, given the parameters, it was either tell him or dont. If you think you can negotiate him down from execution, then you are still telling him. I'm not saying it's not possible, but that is the choice. You could also do nothing and be a bad bro - but that doesn't mean that the princess will be discovered.


4) You step between the leader and the mutineers and try to reason this out. The first thing to do is ask the elders if they would just kindly bugger off to the woods to die. May sound cruel, but in many societies facing scarcity it was actually expected of people past productive age to sacrifice themselves for the younger folks. If the elderly volunteer, you point out there's no reason for the warriors to fight. If the leader protests, you tell him to get his hippie communist head off his ass.

If the elders don't volunteer, you point out to the mutineers that this rebel gig has still been going fine under this leader, and losing him might lose them more than a few extra rations would gain. So the food problem is better solved by working together on the next target, rather than infighting.

As stated, the elders assist in farming during the warm months. This mutiny takes place in the winter, when resources are scarce.. Thus, the elders are not total dead weight.

7) since the couple were happily heading for the town hall, everything suggests orc/elf relations are legal in these parts. (It would be implausible for the couple to be so open about it if it was legally ostracized.) So this leader and his folks are most likely an illegal lynch mob. So the answer is tot tell them to cut it off, alarm the authorities if you can, and use force to drive them away and save their victims if necessary.

It is legal, but it has only been legalized months ago in the Orc Equality Act of 1192. Town guards are people too, and they are having trouble adjusting to these changes. You may be able to convince some of them to help you halfheartedly. They will not challenge the entire protest, though, as it will risk them tarnishing their reputation

8) Bring me my Nazi Stormtrooper uniform so I can kill some filthy barbarians.

Then, after having built up a reputation and resources in service of my fascist nation, I make a military coup with my brothers in arms and appropriate wealth and weaponry of the megacorporation. After enjoying a brief tenure as a militarist autocrat, I slowly cede power to the populace.

That's reasonable. I still don't get why people would rather side with the rights-abolishing megacorporation though. What do you guys have against pederasts?
---

I'll note that most of these situations are not true ethical dilemmas, in that they have clear-cut right answers in many common ethical and legal systems. Situation 5 is completely black and white. So are situations 2 and 6, all their complications are of diabolus ex machina variety, where an unrelated bad thing happens which you would not normally be able to see going in.



BTW, to whoever said that encountering the demon would make you an NPC, that is not true. It's not mind control, it's just greed. Doesn't mean you lost your free will. You can still kill the demon.

Satinavian
2016-02-08, 09:39 AM
Do you guys even know about King Henry VIII? The dude cared so much about his legacy that he executed 2 of his wives, told the Pope to screw himself by leaving the church, and went to war with France 3 times... as a result, I don't get why you people are injecting the morality of a 5th grader into this Prince's life. "He should be nice and love the princess even though she will make him a laughing stock among his people and all the other kings in the land! Let him be known as the cuckhold prince!" Henry was a very bad ruler.

Advising your friend, the prince to behave differently is a reasonable thing to do. Ask yourself : If Macchiavelli would have been a royal advisor to Henry, what would he thought of the kings behavior ?

The "adopt the knight"-option is politically worse then killing bride and knight, but there are many better solutions.



Hence, given the parameters, it was either tell him or dont. If you think you can negotiate him down from execution, then you are still telling him. I'm not saying it's not possible, but that is the choice. You could also do nothing and be a bad bro - but that doesn't mean that the princess will be discovered. If you make a poltical game, there will be political decisions. I have played a lot of them, several did include marriage for peoce making. And "being a bro" is usually the last thing that matters in the decision process.

comicshorse
2016-02-08, 02:19 PM
You think I'm kidding (hehehe)?!? The prince is a very proud man. He's going to execute 2 people just to make sure no one thinks he's a cuckhold. Do you know what that would do to his rule? His legacy? I wouldn't put a PC in a position like that though, where he'd get executed and be powerless to stop it. It would be put on the table but I'd make it easy to persuade him not to kill the paladin.

Do you guys even know about King Henry VIII? The dude cared so much about his legacy that he executed 2 of his wives, told the Pope to screw himself by leaving the church, and went to war with France 3 times... as a result, I don't get why you people are injecting the morality of a 5th grader into this Prince's life. "He should be nice and love the princess even though she will make him a laughing stock among his people and all the other kings in the land! Let him be known as the cuckhold prince!"

Hence, given the parameters, it was either tell him or dont. If you think you can negotiate him down from execution, then you are still telling him. I'm not saying it's not possible, but that is the choice. You could also do nothing and be a bad bro - but that doesn't mean that the princess will be discovered.

I'm thinking most Paladins would consider stopping a war that would kill thousands of innocents a slightly higher priority than being a good bro


Henry was a very bad ruler.

QFT

Wardog
2016-02-08, 06:52 PM
Do you guys even know about King Henry VIII? The dude cared so much about his legacy that he executed 2 of his wives, told the Pope to screw himself by leaving the church, and went to war with France 3 times...

But to be fair, declaring war on France was a long-standing English tradition.


As for the questions, and assuming Lazy Character Design #1 (i.e. myself, with whatever powers and abilities I get from whatever class I've chosen):

1) Steal food to survive. They see if I can do anything about rescuing his daughter.

2) If I can heal him, heal him. If he then attacks me, slap until he stops, then try to talk some sense into him. If he still demands I kill him - leave.

3) Remind the princes that her entire reason for existance is to be politically married for the good of her kingdom, and to stop screwing around. Remind the knight that his entire reason for existance is to serve and protect the princess, and doing her behind her husband's back puts her in danger. The get the hell out of town, because if the prince is as jealous and vengeful (and the princess as reckless) as subsequent posts have made clear, then trouble is bound to happen eventually, and the prince's "friendship" is obviously not true friendship and not worth having.

4) Help the leader stop the mutiny.

5) Own up.

6) Give her one of my kidneys. Then feel really pissed off when she dumps me.

7) Protect the couple. Tell the guards that think enforcing the law they are sworn to uphold would somehow "tarnish their reputation" to either grow a pair, or get a new job.

8) See if there is a way to mitigate the worst aspect of both cultures. If not - avoid conflict and don't provide significant support to either side. Leave as soon as possible. Providing substantial support to any side would probably just make things worse. (Helping the government/megacorp defeat the rebels would be spreading tyranny. Helping the rebels would risk breaking society, after which the rebelious jerks would probably fail to impose order and end up with a lot of factions fighting over the ruins).

goto124
2016-02-08, 08:12 PM
Come to think of it, the prince-princess-knight thing depends on the political situation as well. Maybe I still don't want to fall out of favor with whatever kingdom the prince is part of?

But by now, Situation 3 is not about ethics, but about politics where any decision affects millions.

What if we tone it down to an ordinary situation with ordinary people? I'm not sure what to substitute the arranged marriage for, but essentially:

- Alice is stuck to Bob for non-romantic & pragmatic reasons,
- Bob is extremely possesive of Alice,
- Alice does not love Bob and wants to be with Charlie instead

By removing the politics, supporting Alice becomes more viable, because 'cheating on Bob' no longer means 'millions die'.


To be honest, I sympathize with Alice. She's in a rut between "being with her love" and "being under the iron fist of a possesive idiot for years and years, escaping which is not easy". Even if she somehow manages to break away from Bob to be with Charlie, Bob can easily become a crazy ex who stalks Alice for a long while afterwards.

Fiery Diamond
2016-02-08, 10:18 PM
I made these up in a different thread (not mine), but everyone seems to be ignoring me... How would you guys react in these wacky scenarios?

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?

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?

1. This is a completely absurd situation the likes of which belongs only in some absurdist comedy campaign where no one is dealing with ethical concerns. It cannot be taken seriously. However, in light of your addendums, I'll answer straightforwardly what my other answer besides asking the DM if he was off his meds would be: steal, leave. Not worth messing with.

2. Heal and help, try to talk out of suicide. If I can't, fend off without killing and leave him to himself.

3. After all your additional descriptions? Flee the countries without telling anyone anything, because it's going to go down and I don't have the power to stop it. I wouldn't be friends with a prince like that anyway, so the situation wouldn't come up. I don't make friends with jerks, fools, or idiots.

4. Beat down the leader of the malcontents and talk sense into them. If they have the strength to fight their allies, they have enough strength to fight the enemy without extra food.

5. Depends on whether I'll get leniency for it being an accident. In general, though, I'd own up to it to avoid the innocent guy getting punished.

6. Give her my kidney, be devastated when she left.

7. Help the couple escape, and if I'm powerful enough, beat up the whole crowd if they don't disperse. At their protests that I'm destroying their culture, I'd reply: "Good. It deserves to be destroyed. Now leave or I'll destroy more than that." Cultures don't automatically deserve to exist.

8. Neither. The tyranny is clearly the lesser of the two evils, however (though I might want to sabotage the doomsday device in secret since that's pretty bad). I'd slaughter the barbarians (the men, anyway) like the rabid animals they are. I'd escort the women to someplace else that has the resources to take care of them, and if no such place exists, I'd turn to the evil empire for help with that, since they'd at least get treated better there than with no support at all. Another possibility if I can get them far enough away from the empire is to try to help them set up their own society.

With respect to your confusion that people prefer the evil empire over the monsters-deserving-of-death-in-human-skin, the answer is simple. Firstly, what you've described isn't pederasty, though - pederasty is a man with an underage but already hit puberty boy, which makes sense to oppose for the same reasons as statutory rape. I don't think anyone here, even those who might not like homosexuality, is saying that them being homosexual in the romantic category is a reason to oppose them. No, what makes them lose their status as human beings and become monsters worthy of death is their treatment of women. Anyone Anything that treats women as mere objects and tools of procreation deserves not even the slightest bit of respect accorded actual people.:smallfurious:

Can you tell that your confusion made me a bit angry?

goto124
2016-02-08, 10:23 PM
Situation 8 is a great set-up for an women-only society to start :smalltongue:

Fiery Diamond
2016-02-08, 10:27 PM
Situation 8 is a great set-up for an women-only society to start :smalltongue:

It is! The biggest problem would be whether they absorbed enough information to actually manage it with the empire right next door - basically, they need to either join up with the empire to avoid being taken down by it or get as far away from the empire as possible. ... I'm assuming, of course, that we've already eliminated their men.

Douche
2016-02-09, 09:02 AM
8. Neither. The tyranny is clearly the lesser of the two evils, however (though I might want to sabotage the doomsday device in secret since that's pretty bad). I'd slaughter the barbarians (the men, anyway) like the rabid animals they are. I'd escort the women to someplace else that has the resources to take care of them, and if no such place exists, I'd turn to the evil empire for help with that, since they'd at least get treated better there than with no support at all. Another possibility if I can get them far enough away from the empire is to try to help them set up their own society.

With respect to your confusion that people prefer the evil empire over the monsters-deserving-of-death-in-human-skin, the answer is simple. Firstly, what you've described isn't pederasty, though - pederasty is a man with an underage but already hit puberty boy, which makes sense to oppose for the same reasons as statutory rape. I don't think anyone here, even those who might not like homosexuality, is saying that them being homosexual in the romantic category is a reason to oppose them. No, what makes them lose their status as human beings and become monsters worthy of death is their treatment of women. Anyone Anything that treats women as mere objects and tools of procreation deserves not even the slightest bit of respect accorded actual people.:smallfurious:

Can you tell that your confusion made me a bit angry?

Okay, okay, I thought that it was a given that this was Hollywood pederasty. I'm not advocating or depicting child abuse. I was driving at the idea that it's an older man and a young man, with the older man serving as a mentor and they also make love... But it'd be like a 40 year old and a 20 year old.

I still don't understand why this makes you so riled up. You're basically saying you'd destroy Athens in favor of helping Nero. You'd rather side with the evil empire that suppresses all forms of expression? The rebels celebrate art and life, and happen to value men over women. I never said they beat them mercilessly for no reason or anything. It's obviously modeled after ancient Greece. Taking any baggage you have related to Ancient Greece, and reading this for reference
http://www.penn.museum/sites/greek_world/women.html
You'd destroy ancient Greece? Would you personally cut Socrates' throat too? This is madness! :smalltongue:


I have the rest of the party infiltrate both royal courts, wait until the wedding day, then kill everyone on both royal sides except the prince. Making him a double king is being a bro, right?

The Lannisters send their regards?


You guys want to know my responses?

Theft-Based Economy
Convince the baker to take payment of gold, by force if necessary (therefore making it an armed robbery - legal). Realize this was an inversion of the "Is it immoral for a man to steal bread to feed his family" trope.

Suicidal Bullywog
Listen to the Bullywog's story. Sometimes just talking about it can help. Offer him my friendship while he his bones are still broken. If he wants, he can join our party as an adventurer (since he already has experience with dragons). If not, then I would obey his wishes and put him out of his misery (provided there are no legal ramifications)

Paladin Best Man
As a lawful paladin, I believe it would be my duty to ensure peace. I would do this by striking down the knight and make the princess watch the life drain from his eyes. This is what your midnight trysts have done. Now he's dead. Thousands more will die - just like him - if you want to shirk your duty and hurt the prince again. Point driven home.

If I lose my paladin-hood, big deal. Now I have fighter levels. But from a roleplaying perspective, I was doing my best to ensure peace and order, as well as doing my duty as the closest friend to the prince. Furthermore, in the morals of the time, I probably wasn't doing anything wrong. Seems to me you guys generally have a problem with empathizing with a different culture/time period by injecting your 2016 morals into everything.

If the prince wants to know why I killed the knight, I will ask him to trust me. It was the best thing to do for the kingdom. If he wants to press the issue, threatens to imprison or execute me, then I will take the secret to my grave. At the very least, that should be enough redemption to get my pally powers back.

Resistance Mutiny
Execute the leader of the mutiny publicly, with no pomp and circumstance. Leave his body for the wolves. Everyone will get the message.

Scaffolding Accident
That's a tough one. In real life, I honestly don't know what I would do. I'd probably lose sleep over it if I didn't say anything. In the game, maybe I could make it look like an act of god somehow, to make it look like it was no one's fault.

Kidney
I need my kidneys. I haven't seen my father in years, but I wouldn't kill him. I think she'll have to die.

Elf/Orc Couple
Cause a distraction, like a fire or summoning an angry fey. Help the couple escape. Realize I'm not going to invoke substantial cultural change overnight, but since they legalized orc/elf relations that means they're in, like, the post-US civil war era, so Orcolm X will be coming about soon.

Evil Regime vs Pederasts
I'd side with the rebels. Not sure what drives everyone to side with the Orwellian government. Your character was raised in the same time period as this campaign is taking place, so your own culture probably isn't exactly a Matriarchal society either. Womens rights are not your fight (and coming from a position of male privilege, your voice probably doesn't mean much anyway) so I would focus on destroying the oppressive regime. Once the empire has dissolved, the various regions will return to their old cultures. War might ensue, but it's better than cultural genocide. If I cared enough (possibly by interacting with a strong, sympathetic female NPC) then I would champion her and help the fight for womens rights after the immediate threat is gone.

OldTrees1
2016-02-09, 10:36 AM
Okay, okay, I thought that it was a given that this was Hollywood pederasty. I'm not advocating or depicting child abuse. I was driving at the idea that it's an older man and a young man, with the older man serving as a mentor and they also make love... But it'd be like a 40 year old and a 20 year old.

I still don't understand why this makes you so riled up. You're basically saying you'd destroy Athens in favor of helping Nero. You'd rather side with the evil empire that suppresses all forms of expression? The rebels celebrate art and life, and happen to value men over women. I never said they beat them mercilessly for no reason or anything. It's obviously modeled after ancient Greece. Taking any baggage you have related to Ancient Greece, and reading this for reference
http://www.penn.museum/sites/greek_world/women.html
You'd destroy ancient Greece? Would you personally cut Socrates' throat too? This is madness! :smalltongue:

1) As others have pointed out, being against one or both of these groups does not imply being for the other.
"My enemy's enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less."

2) As a student of philosophy, I have a great respect for the contributions of Greece, Athens, and in particular Socrates. However given the opportunity, the ability, and the ability to identify it as such I would prima facie prevent immoral actions inflicted by a moral agent upon a being with moral personhood.
Yes, this does mean I would reform Ancient Greece.
No, it does not mean slashing throats. Especially of Socrates who probably could be convinced by the ironic usage of his own technique.

3) What probably angry was him inferring from what you wrote an apparent obliviousness to the moral relevance or at least to the significantly larger moral relevance of mistreatment of women. Or alternatively his inferring that you were inferring the same from what he and others had written about that situation.

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 10:53 AM
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. Me: I donate my kidney and do I can for my love. My barbarian: same My Favored soul of Olidammara: Pay for the funeral, everyone loves a party.


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?

I do nothing. None of my business. It's not my job to tell people how to live their lives one way or the other.


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?
It sounds like both sides suck. That's the idea right? I'd go with the second and treat my woman right. No buddy lovin' for me.

Douche
2016-02-09, 10:57 AM
1) As others have pointed out, being against one or both of these groups does not imply being for the other.
"My enemy's enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less."

2) As a student of philosophy, I have a great respect for the contributions of Greece, Athens, and in particular Socrates. However given the opportunity, the ability, and the ability to identify it as such I would prima facie prevent immoral actions inflicted by a moral agent upon a being with moral personhood.
Yes, this does mean I would reform Ancient Greece.
No, it does not mean slashing throats. Especially of Socrates who probably could be convinced by the ironic usage of his own technique.

3) What made him angry was him inferring from what you wrote an apparent obliviousness to the moral relevance or at least to the significantly larger moral relevance of mistreatment of women. Or alternatively his inferring that you were inferring the same from what he and others had written about that situation.

I'm not oblivious to the moral significance of women's rights, I'm just surprised that so many people responded in favor of prison camps and indoctrination.

It's like... women cant vote and having to stay home and cook, versus total elimination of individual rights and a doomsday device? That's siding with Nazi Germany over, like 1900's America. I thought it was clear by the dichotomy I created that the "greeks" are the only ones who oppose that regime. You're not going to destroy an entire government & brainwashed populace with one team of adventurers. Even if you did destroy the entire ruling class, they're just figureheads to the faceless megacorporation. You're not going to be able to destroy them. They will replace the rulers.

I don't feel like I'm adding in details to screw you guys over here, either. I think that's all easy to infer if you read between the lines. While I'm not trying to devalue women in our own society, I just think that's why it's surprising that people would rather side with the side clearly labeled "Evil Empire"

The thing I've seen mentioned in many of these "moral choice" threads is that people always want to take option C: I do the thing that is right for everyone. But this is one where that isn't going to happen... You'd decide to start your own revolution against 2 powers. The DM would allow you to do so to avoid railroading. Then. realistically, you'd die. Then you'd all cry cuz you weren't given all the tools to succeed - even though you chose to go solo against 2 major powers, not using the resources of either.

Segev
2016-02-09, 11:01 AM
The thing I've seen mentioned in many of these "moral choice" threads is that people always want to take option C: I do the thing that is right for everyone. But this is one where that isn't going to happen... You'd decide to start your own revolution against 2 powers. The DM would allow you to do so to avoid railroading. Then. realistically, you'd die. Then you'd all cry cuz you weren't given all the tools to succeed - even though you chose to go solo against 2 major powers, not using the resources of either.

There are far more than just 3 options.

The one I've seen advocated here is "pick a side and reform it from within" more often than not. It's probably easier to do that with the "rebels," since the MAIN problem is the CE monster leading them. Taking over the rebels by working your way up their ranks and then reforming the internal culture is quite doable in most RPGs.

The thing is, people don't tend to play RPGs to play ineffectual, helpless bystanders, unless that's the game that is pitched to them. And usually, not even then; they just don't play those games. We can play "bystanders" in real life without any need for make-believe.

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 11:02 AM
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!

It sounds like a good place to leave. Where is this LA? :smallbiggrin:


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.

We keep the creature as comfortable as possible as we learn what secrets it knows. Preferably lucrative ones.


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?
I saw this in a movie. I'd kick the warriors ass and make sure everyone gets there share and tell my people to stop burning resources we can use. :)


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?
We pay his bail and tell him to run. :)

OldTrees1
2016-02-09, 11:14 AM
I'm not oblivious to the moral significance of women's rights, I'm just surprised that so many people responded in favor of prison camps and indoctrination.

I'm glad you are not oblivious. I was explaining where the anger probably came from. (You will notice there were several qualifiers in that post including "inferred").

However you are oblivious about how many people are responding in favor of prison camps and indoctrination. I have been reading the same thread as you and I count 0. The answers to that situation have all been choosing which to defeat first(or to defeat both of them at the same time).


The thing I've seen mentioned in many of these "moral choice" threads is that people always want to take option C: I do the thing that is right for everyone. But this is one where that isn't going to happen... You'd decide to start your own revolution against 2 powers. The DM would allow you to do so to avoid railroading. Then. realistically, you'd die. Then you'd all cry cuz you weren't given all the tools to succeed - even though you chose to go solo against 2 major powers, not using the resources of either.

When option C(defeat both evils) is unavailable people default to option D(defeat evil) or E(defeat evil) not back to your A(support evil) or B(support evil). This is the nature of the duty all moral agents have. Although some very few would argue that trying and failing at C is still the correct choice even with the failure.

Sidenote:
Options F, G, H, I, and J are lesser but more probable variations of C
F/G: Be a leech on one side(aka damaging them by draining resources) while defeating the other side
H/I: Be a leech on both sides while defeating one side
J: Be a leech on both sides while defeating both sides (Darth Sideous did this pretty well)

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 11:20 AM
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??

I would preserve the greater good and say nothing. Make sure the peace is preserved... and get the poor prince laid on the night of his bachelor party. :smallbiggrin:

Douche
2016-02-09, 11:40 AM
There are far more than just 3 options.

The one I've seen advocated here is "pick a side and reform it from within" more often than not. It's probably easier to do that with the "rebels," since the MAIN problem is the CE monster leading them. Taking over the rebels by working your way up their ranks and then reforming the internal culture is quite doable in most RPGs.

The thing is, people don't tend to play RPGs to play ineffectual, helpless bystanders, unless that's the game that is pitched to them. And usually, not even then; they just don't play those games. We can play "bystanders" in real life without any need for make-believe.


I'm glad you are not oblivious. I was explaining where the anger probably came from. (You will notice there were several qualifiers in that post including "inferred").

However you are oblivious about how many people are responding in favor of prison camps and indoctrination. I have been reading the same thread as you and I count 0. The answers to that situation have all been choosing which to defeat first(or to defeat both of them at the same time).



When option C(defeat both evils) is unavailable people default to option D(defeat evil) or E(defeat evil) not back to your A(support evil) or B(support evil). This is the nature of the duty all moral agents have. Although some very few would argue that trying and failing at C is still the correct choice even with the failure.

Sidenote:
Options F, G, H, I, and J are lesser but more probable variations of C
F/G: Be a leech on one side(aka damaging them by draining resources) while defeating the other side
H/I: Be a leech on both sides while defeating one side
J: Be a leech on both sides while defeating both sides (Darth Sideous did this pretty well)

You guys are aware of the Middle East, right? Do you really picture it working out when you destroy both major powers and try to impose your culture on them? What happens after you leave? Furthermore, did you even see Star Wars?!?

I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the Chaotic guy is evil. What if he wants to spread chaotic good? When I wrote the OP I was expressing that he is diametrically opposed to the totalitarian empire. He just really loves freedom. For men. And likes to feel important as well.


Also, once more, if you destroy one side, the other side will win. Do you imagine yourself as the leader of a single team of commandos in WWII - you kill Hitler and destroy the rest of the leadership. Then what happens? The Allies sweep through and clean up house on a leaderless army. But wait, we don't like the allies either! What should we do?!

Segev
2016-02-09, 11:56 AM
You guys are aware of the Middle East, right?Oh, man, you really don't want to get me started.


Do you really picture it working out when you destroy both major powers and try to impose your culture on them?Yes. The Roman method would be a good way to go about it: conquer and impose your culture. Suppress all aspects of theirs that are morally objectionable on the simple grounds that women have rights and no, you don't get to murder people just because you don't like their choices that have no impact on your ability to live your own life. It would take three generations, but it could be done.


What happens after you leave?...leave? Oh, no, if I'm going in there, I'm staying. I've MADE it my responsibility, and I'm not leaving until the poisonous culture is rooted out and replaced with a healthier one.


Furthermore, did you even see Star Wars?!?Yes, but I don't see what poorly-written cultures in fiction have to do with this.


I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the Chaotic guy is evil.Your original description, which stated he was manipulating the rebels for his own selfish power and greed. That's not CN; that's certainly not CG; that's CE.


What if he wants to spread chaotic good? When I wrote the OP I was expressing that he is diametrically opposed to the totalitarian empire. He just really loves freedom. For men. And likes to feel important as well.If he's going to continue to encourage bad behavior and a poisonous culture, I'll remove him as part of replacing the culture.



Also, once more, if you destroy one side, the other side will win. Do you imagine yourself as the leader of a single team of commandos in WWII - you kill Hitler and destroy the rest of the leadership. Then what happens? The Allies sweep through and clean up house on a leaderless army. But wait, we don't like the allies either! What should we do?!Kill and replace Hitler, then. Now I defend my new nation with superior tactics and better resource deployment. If I have to, I kill FDR and Stalin to throw the Allies into confusion to buy myself space to refortify. (I'm not even going to get started on the systemic problems Hitler's leadership created that led to the lack of materiel and manpower to effectively fight the war; it's what ultimately made the Allies' victory inevitable.)

Segev
2016-02-09, 11:59 AM
Here, just take a look at this recent interview (http://grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1954) explaining how I have already addressed such issues. It continues up to the now-penultimate comic (about 5-6 pages).

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 12:10 PM
I am not trying to force you to fail. I'm asking you to choose between being a bro and telling the prince that he's being played for a fool, or be a bad bro and don't tell him. The threat of war is just there to add to the stakes

Just ask yourself: what would a true bro do in this situation. You will recall the the original parameters said the prince made you his best man and really trusts you
Ahhh the old bros before hoes. I think the scenario is a lot more than the prince being made the fool. The fate of two nations are on the line because of the princes feelings? The two don't even know each other. It is a political wedding to help solidify a new alliance. Might the two royal brats learn to love each other? Absolutely. Might they not? Absolutely. Keeping the peace is what's important. A ruler that would kill their allies kid over fidelity is a prideful fool. As a character I would keep the peace and kill the king if need be to keep it. The prince is a fool to think he loves someone he obviously doesn't even know. In an alliance such as this I think hostages (To the princess's parents) would be necessary to make sure the king didn't do anything rash. The needs of stability are much more important than who's thingy touched who's.

Douche
2016-02-09, 12:23 PM
Oh, man, you really don't want to get me started.

Yes. The Roman method would be a good way to go about it: conquer and impose your culture. Suppress all aspects of theirs that are morally objectionable on the simple grounds that women have rights and no, you don't get to murder people just because you don't like their choices that have no impact on your ability to live your own life. It would take three generations, but it could be done.

...leave? Oh, no, if I'm going in there, I'm staying. I've MADE it my responsibility, and I'm not leaving until the poisonous culture is rooted out and replaced with a healthier one.

Yes, but I don't see what poorly-written cultures in fiction have to do with this.

Your original description, which stated he was manipulating the rebels for his own selfish power and greed. That's not CN; that's certainly not CG; that's CE.

If he's going to continue to encourage bad behavior and a poisonous culture, I'll remove him as part of replacing the culture.


Kill and replace Hitler, then. Now I defend my new nation with superior tactics and better resource deployment. If I have to, I kill FDR and Stalin to throw the Allies into confusion to buy myself space to refortify. (I'm not even going to get started on the systemic problems Hitler's leadership created that led to the lack of materiel and manpower to effectively fight the war; it's what ultimately made the Allies' victory inevitable.)

I just don't have the will to retort to this. Alright, you replaced Hitler - but we are subscribing to the belief that he gained power by capitalizing on the prevailing attitude of his culture. For some reason, everyone is like "well, even though he killed our dear leader, we'll put him in power instead of overwhelming him and giving him a state execution" Now the Nazis, and the German people, expect you to carry on the will of the people. They want you to finish exterminating the Jews. What do you do?

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 12:29 PM
Come to think of it, the prince-princess-knight thing depends on the political situation as well. Maybe I still don't want to fall out of favor with whatever kingdom the prince is part of?

But by now, Situation 3 is not about ethics, but about politics where any decision affects millions.

What if we tone it down to an ordinary situation with ordinary people? I'm not sure what to substitute the arranged marriage for, but essentially:

- Alice is stuck to Bob for non-romantic & pragmatic reasons,
- Bob is extremely possesive of Alice,
- Alice does not love Bob and wants to be with Charlie instead

By removing the politics, supporting Alice becomes more viable, because 'cheating on Bob' no longer means 'millions die'.

Exactly. The whole situation is different if it were just regular people. I tell Bob who made me his best man that Alice is cheating on him because he is an unsecure ******* and needs to realize his own self worth before attempting another relationship with a woman. In a regular relationship the only people who are affected are those in it. Yet people do this kind of stuff thinking they will be happy. A 20 something that marries an 85 year old probably isn't doing it for love. The 85 year old is thinking I have a 20 something! lol.

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 12:38 PM
Situation 8 is a great set-up for an women-only society to start
I'm curious to know what role men might play in this society?

Extremes seldom work for the benefit of all.

OldTrees1
2016-02-09, 12:52 PM
You guys are aware of the Middle East, right? Do you really picture it working out when you destroy both major powers and try to impose your culture on them? What happens after you leave? Furthermore, did you even see Star Wars?!?

I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the Chaotic guy is evil. What if he wants to spread chaotic good? When I wrote the OP I was expressing that he is diametrically opposed to the totalitarian empire. He just really loves freedom. For men. And likes to feel important as well.


Also, once more, if you destroy one side, the other side will win. Do you imagine yourself as the leader of a single team of commandos in WWII - you kill Hitler and destroy the rest of the leadership. Then what happens? The Allies sweep through and clean up house on a leaderless army. But wait, we don't like the allies either! What should we do?!

I am quite familiar with the concept of blowback. Inaction in the face of evil for fear of the possibility of future evil is not the morally superogatory action.

Love of freedom is all well and good but that is not what people are objecting to with the chaotic side. The chaotic side is oppressing women. That oppression is an evil to be opposed regardless if the oppressors are good/evil/neutral/unaligned. (Yes, you read that right, ethics are nuanced and so too must alignment be nuanced)

As I alluded to in the previous post: If you sap allied resources while destroying the axes powers, your second fight will be easier. If you sap resources from both while fighting both while they fight each other, then you get to establish your own empire(you have seen Star Wars right?)

Segev
2016-02-09, 12:52 PM
I just don't have the will to retort to this. Alright, you replaced Hitler - but we are subscribing to the belief that he gained power by capitalizing on the prevailing attitude of his culture. For some reason, everyone is like "well, even though he killed our dear leader, we'll put him in power instead of overwhelming him and giving him a state execution" Now the Nazis, and the German people, expect you to carry on the will of the people. They want you to finish exterminating the Jews. What do you do?

Tell them "no," and stop the propaganda that makes that a prevailing attitude. I am not sure I can really elaborate further without violating forum rules, because it would require discussing real-world history.

comicshorse
2016-02-09, 01:00 PM
Paladin Best Man
If the prince wants to know why I killed the knight, I will ask him to trust me. It was the best thing to do for the kingdom. If he wants to press the issue, threatens to imprison or execute me, then I will take the secret to my grave. At the very least, that should be enough redemption to get my pally powers back.



You just murdered a member of the nobility in front of a King's daughter that's not a IF you get executed it's a WHEN and how long and painful it is
( And that's assuming the Princess takes the lesson you want away from the experience and not ' my intended best friend is a murdering madman, I REALLY don't want to marry him now)

Douche
2016-02-09, 01:02 PM
As I alluded to in the previous post: If you sap allied resources while destroying the axes powers, your second fight will be easier. If you sap resources from both while fighting both while they fight each other, then you get to establish your own empire(you have seen Star Wars right?)

You've seen Star Wars VII, right? Just because you killed the Emperor doesnt mean that the Empire ceases to exist.

If anything, the New Order seems more powerful than they were under Palpatine's control.



Tell them "no," and stop the propaganda that makes that a prevailing attitude.

Then you get assassinated because you don't represent the will of the people.

Although I'm not clear which side you're ruling at this point. If you took control of the evil regime then I guess they'd be okay with you not putting people into prison camps anymore. The woman-subjugators would probably not look so kindly on one guy changing their entire way of life though.



Anyway, I'm tired of looking like the bad guy here for suggesting you go along with the conventions of a medieval society instead of trying to destroy two entire governments single-handed.

Satinavian
2016-02-09, 01:02 PM
IIt's like... women cant vote and having to stay home and cook, versus total elimination of individual rights and a doomsday device? That's siding with Nazi Germany over, like 1900's America.That is a tad harsh. The Nazis did a lot of other nasty stuff which your Evil Empire so far hasn't done. I think, a comparison between 1900's America and 1970s Soviet Union is far more accurate (the difference between a state controlled economy and one consisting basically of a single corporation is pretty superficial and an arsenal for mutually assured destruction is a pretty good match for the doomsday device).
On the other side, i don't think

"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"
is even remotely close to 1900s America. Can't think of a good match. Golden Horde maybe ? But even that is a stretch. Has anyone a good idea ?

And yes, a lot of people would prefer the Soviets in this case.




I just don't have the will to retort to this. Alright, you replaced Hitler - but we are subscribing to the belief that he gained power by capitalizing on the prevailing attitude of his culture. For some reason, everyone is like "well, even though he killed our dear leader, we'll put him in power instead of overwhelming him and giving him a state execution" Now the Nazis, and the German people, expect you to carry on the will of the people. They want you to finish exterminating the Jews. What do you do? You are aware of the many plots of the German Elite and even the Wehrmacht to kill Hitler to allow for a saner policy and even peace ? The will of the Nazis was not the will of the people, especcially after the war started to go wrong.

BigNorm
2016-02-09, 01:06 PM
I obviously started and read everything up to here today and responded along the way. It was fun. You asked people what would they do and they put in there two coppers and yet you seemed to have gotten upset and bring up the Holocaust? That's just stupid.

You would handle the princess situation by killing her lover. I think you may have just created a powerful enemy.

Segev
2016-02-09, 01:10 PM
Anyway, I'm tired of looking like the bad guy here for suggesting you go along with the conventions of a medieval society instead of trying to destroy two entire governments single-handed.

You asked what WE, members of modern society, would do. If you assume that we're products of the medieval society, there really isn't a moral quandary; we share the morals, most likely, and thus don't see a conflict that needs resolving.

By asking us to resolve a moral quandary then scolding us for not simply accepting the mores of a society wherein those mores are what's creating the quandary, you're moving the goal posts back and forth to keep the problem not just insoluble, but to make us "wrong" no matter what we say. ^^;

Douche
2016-02-09, 01:18 PM
I obviously started and read everything up to here today and responded along the way. It was fun. You asked people what would they do and they put in there two coppers and yet you seemed to have gotten upset and bring up the Holocaust? That's just stupid.

You would handle the princess situation by killing her lover. I think you may have just created a powerful enemy.

I'm sorry it came to that, but I wasn't the first person to compare the evil regime to Nazis. I wasn't upset, I was shocked at the one dude's reaction who would have slaughtered all the men and sided with the evil regime if necessary (back in Post #58).


You asked what WE, members of modern society, would do. If you assume that we're products of the medieval society, there really isn't a moral quandary; we share the morals, most likely, and thus don't see a conflict that needs resolving.

By asking us to resolve a moral quandary then scolding us for not simply accepting the mores of a society wherein those mores are what's creating the quandary, you're moving the goal posts back and forth to keep the problem not just insoluble, but to make us "wrong" no matter what we say. ^^;

I'm not interested in making a spectacle of myself anymore. I was just providing what I thought would be reasonable reactions from the people when you take it upon yourself to murder their leaders and tell them how to live their lives. I don't think I was moving any goal posts, I was asking you to consider another culture. If you went to [random country] and it was illegal to, I dunno, wear open toed shoes, would you observe their customs or would you demolish their entire society? Whether or not you have magic powers, that's not a proportionate response.

Plus, it's called roleplaying. A lot of people in this thread did make the distinction if they were answering in character or not, so they did in fact consider it in some way.

I'm sorry if I'm seeming adversarial. I actually notice your posts a lot and I enjoy reading your opinions, Segev.


You just murdered a member of the nobility in front of a King's daughter that's not a IF you get executed it's a WHEN and how long and painful it is
( And that's assuming the Princess takes the lesson you want away from the experience and not ' my intended best friend is a murdering madman, I REALLY don't want to marry him now)

Then I will face death with honor, knowing I have done my best to try and preserve peace. Maybe ask for a trial by combat. That way at least if/when I die, I will be sent to my rightful place in Valhalla.

Why would the princess assume that the prince had anything to do with me killing her paramour? She should have known that if she got discovered (which she did - by me) that the knight was gonna die no matter what. There's really no way around that. The parameters have already been set that execution is on the table for eating off the kings plate. Henry VIII, yo.

TheCountAlucard
2016-02-09, 01:18 PM
Also, if you didn't want to look like a bad guy, mayhaps you should have gone with a different username...?

comicshorse
2016-02-09, 03:39 PM
Then I will face death with honor, knowing I have done my best to try and preserve peace. Maybe ask for a trial by combat. That way at least if/when I die, I will be sent to my rightful place in Valhalla.


Fair enough, it just seems strange that sacrificing two lives is fine but expecting the Prince to live with an unfaithful wife isn't


Why would the princess assume that the prince had anything to do with me killing her paramour?

I didn't mean the Princess would assume the Prince was behind the killing, just that if he had as a best friend a guy who murdered her lover in front of her that wouldn't exactly recommend him as a husband
You can judge a man by his friends and all that

Douche
2016-02-09, 03:55 PM
Fair enough, it just seems strange that sacrificing two lives is fine but expecting the Prince to live with an unfaithful wife isn't



I didn't mean the Princess would assume the Prince was behind the killing, just that if he had as a best friend a guy who murdered her lover in front of her that wouldn't exactly recommend him as a husband
You can judge a man by his friends and all that

I am but a humble servant to the prince. I would not want to force his hand into executing the princess. Nor would I have him be a known cuckhold to his own people. The prince must show strength for his people to follow him in these trying times. Furthermore, if the opposing kingdom finds out that he is okay with his wife sleeping around, they will perceive it as a sign of weakness and take the opportunity to fan the flames of war again.

If I must die to ensure that doesnt happen, then I do so gladly.

And it's not murder, it's an execution. She knew the stakes.

Edit: Lastly, if having her paramour die in front of her does not convince her that there is more at stake than her fun times, then there is really no way to avert war. She's too much of a bubble-head to know any better if the threat of war and death won't convince her to stop.

USS Sorceror
2016-02-09, 04:10 PM
Also, if you didn't want to look like a bad guy, mayhaps you should have gone with a different username...?

I think the username and subject matter are intentional....

-is shot for explaining the joke-

OldTrees1
2016-02-09, 04:16 PM
You've seen Star Wars VII, right? Just because you killed the Emperor doesnt mean that the Empire ceases to exist.

If anything, the New Order seems more powerful than they were under Palpatine's control.

I have seen VII. However I will remind you that I used Palpatine as an example of one of the various "hurt both foes" strategies one could take. The Emperor even succeeded so well that it persisted beyond his death.

I am not saying that the best thing to do would be easy or even achievable within one lifespan. However I am trying to enable you to see what people are choosing for situation 8 (hint: it is not "let's go support that good old dictatorship") and why they would be against the chaotic group (hint: it is not "the chaotic group loves freedom for men" or "has Greek style pederasty").

Douche
2016-02-09, 04:32 PM
I have seen VII. However I will remind you that I used Palpatine as an example of one of the various "hurt both foes" strategies one could take. The Emperor even succeeded so well that it persisted beyond his death.

I am not saying that the best thing to do would be easy or even achievable within one lifespan. However I am trying to enable you to see what people are choosing for situation 8 (hint: it is not "let's go support that good old dictatorship") and why they would be against the chaotic group (hint: it is not "the chaotic group loves freedom for men" or "has Greek style pederasty").

My point was that the culture did not change overnight because the Emperor died. Nor was there a significant power shift at all, really. (The movie wasn't really clear on how much territory the Rebels controlled, imo... Other than the 6 or so planets that got blown up)

So just by killing the leaders of both regimes or pitting them against each other, doesn't mean anything will change.

In essence, both our points are valid. Palpatine managed to become supreme ruler by pitting both parties against each other. But nothing really changes between VI & VII. However, I feel like Palpatine was playing chessmaster from the start. You would be inheriting this situation. Plus, I didn't read any of the EU and the films make pretty much every party vague on the ethics front, so I can't really say how much societal change Palpatine really enacted. I just know the economy must have flourished under him. Nothing about abolishing sexism though.

comicshorse
2016-02-09, 06:18 PM
And it's not murder, it's an execution. She knew the stakes.



Nope its murder. Execution involves the use of the law and a trial


Edit: Lastly, if having her paramour die in front of her does not convince her that there is more at stake than her fun times, then there is really no way to avert war.

Certainly there is, just have the Prince turn a blind eye to her infidelities for the sake of their respective kingdoms. Or find a different way to seal the peace

Also I assume the Knight is of her kingdom. Have you considered the effect the Prince's best friend murdering a minor Noble of the opposing kingdom is likely to have on the fragile peace ?

Coidzor
2016-02-09, 06:57 PM
@OP: I reject your idea that you can have pederasty without child abuse.

Or teen abuse.

If it's between adult dudes only, should've gone with the samurai instead of pederasty.


To be honest, I sympathize with Alice.

To be fair, this is a princess who is so lazy she chose to not become an adventuring type in a fantasy world where adventuring is a path to strength and power and Paladins exist, and instead decided that being a token to be married off was A-OK with her and couldn't even be bothered to be discreet enough not to get walked in on by a Paladin, a type of person not normally noted for their keen senses and understanding of underhandedness.

To paraphrase Frank and K, in a world where a few months of death-defying can make a farmboy be able to kill a dragon with a stick, choosing to be an aristocrat means you're agreeing to be pretty enough for them to keep around when they come knocking for the throne and there's no more living/interested relatives with the power to stop them.

Wardog
2016-02-09, 07:51 PM
Evil Regime vs Pederasts
I'd side with the rebels. Not sure what drives everyone to side with the Orwellian government. Your character was raised in the same time period as this campaign is taking place, so your own culture probably isn't exactly a Matriarchal society either. Womens rights are not your fight (and coming from a position of male privilege, your voice probably doesn't mean much anyway) so I would focus on destroying the oppressive regime. Once the empire has dissolved, the various regions will return to their old cultures. War might ensue, but it's better than cultural genocide. If I cared enough (possibly by interacting with a strong, sympathetic female NPC) then I would champion her and help the fight for womens rights after the immediate threat is gone.

Attitudes to women's rights can vary widely from place to place even within the same time period. Spartan women had more rights than Athenian women (including owning property). Approximately 20% (IIRC) of Scythian and Sarmatian women were warriors. Mongol women helped run the government while the men were off fighting. You can't just declare that our characters upbringing would mean we wouldn't care about how they treated women. And you certainly can't assume that our character is male and comes from male privilage - especially as many of the forum members are female.

Also, you specifically said:
"They think women are nothing more than objects and child-bearers". Not just that women have fewer rights or respect, but that they are effectively not even people.
"Their leader is power hungry" - not the worst thing, but hardely something that would endear him to us.
"and wants to spread chaos, because he believes that living in a society of order cannot be considered life" - its unclear what that actually means, but it sounds to me like he wants to spread conflict and disorder, and disregards anyone who doesn't want that. Indeed, if he considers that an ordered society "cannot be considered life", then he's probably ambivilant at best about killing people who oppose him.

On the plus side, they "celebrate art and culture, preach individual freedom". Well, that's just grand. Unfortunately, you have to judge people by their actions rather than their words, and they don't seem to live up to their platitudes (especially the power-hungry leader). I expect that all their talk about "individual freedom" is just rationalization for them to take what they want from those weaker than them.

If the rebels win, they are going to cause misery for:
1) The 50% of the population unfortunate enough to be born with a womb.
2) Plus all the people who get killed in their rebellion
3) Plus all the people who just want to live a quiet, peaceful life without a bunch of Nietzschean frat-boys trashing everything.

In contrast, in the dictatorship, you will probably be fine as long as you don't make trouble. It's certainly not good, and in other circumstances I'd oppose it, but in this case, the rebels are not good either, and assisting them overthrowing the government would likely make things worse.



You guys are aware of the Middle East, right? Do you really picture it working out when you destroy both major powers and try to impose your culture on them? What happens after you leave? Furthermore, did you even see Star Wars?!?
Hence why my first choice was:
1) Don't support either side.
2) Attempt to mitigate the excesses of both sides.
3) If that doesn't work, stop interfering and just leave before you make it worse.

Fiery Diamond
2016-02-09, 10:00 PM
Attitudes to women's rights can vary widely from place to place even within the same time period. Spartan women had more rights than Athenian women (including owning property). Approximately 20% (IIRC) of Scythian and Sarmatian women were warriors. Mongol women helped run the government while the men were off fighting. You can't just declare that our characters upbringing would mean we wouldn't care about how they treated women. And you certainly can't assume that our character is male and comes from male privilage - especially as many of the forum members are female.

Also, you specifically said:
"They think women are nothing more than objects and child-bearers". Not just that women have fewer rights or respect, but that they are effectively not even people.
"Their leader is power hungry" - not the worst thing, but hardely something that would endear him to us.
"and wants to spread chaos, because he believes that living in a society of order cannot be considered life" - its unclear what that actually means, but it sounds to me like he wants to spread conflict and disorder, and disregards anyone who doesn't want that. Indeed, if he considers that an ordered society "cannot be considered life", then he's probably ambivilant at best about killing people who oppose him.

On the plus side, they "celebrate art and culture, preach individual freedom". Well, that's just grand. Unfortunately, you have to judge people by their actions rather than their words, and they don't seem to live up to their platitudes (especially the power-hungry leader). I expect that all their talk about "individual freedom" is just rationalization for them to take what they want from those weaker than them.

If the rebels win, they are going to cause misery for:
1) The 50% of the population unfortunate enough to be born with a womb.
2) Plus all the people who get killed in their rebellion
3) Plus all the people who just want to live a quiet, peaceful life without a bunch of Nietzschean frat-boys trashing everything.

In contrast, in the dictatorship, you will probably be fine as long as you don't make trouble. It's certainly not good, and in other circumstances I'd oppose it, but in this case, the rebels are not good either, and assisting them overthrowing the government would likely make things worse.

Exactly. Special emphasis on what I bolded. I do not see men who see women as not people as people, I see them as monsters to be put down.

FabulousFizban
2016-02-09, 10:59 PM
OP's very 1st scenario just sounds like a town of Kender.

Zale
2016-02-10, 01:03 AM
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??


I am a Paladin.
I am an agent of the forces of righteousness and duty, of justice and harmony.

As such I remind them, all of them including the Prince, that they have a duty to their people, to their nations. The price of their power is the responsibility of the throne.

But I will not force them to take up this cup- how could I? I am a Paladin; I know what Duty is. It is the absolute harmony of good and order, it is not a chain that strangles people, or a wicked contract that devours people whole- Duty is a strength, a foundation, the rock upon which my whole existence is build.

What makes it a Good Order is that it is willing. It is is that I am willing to submit to the code, the duty, the responsibility.

But if I were to force someone to take up a responsibility, to turn promises into a prisons and duties into chains... then how am I any better than a tinpot tyrant or Asmodeus himself. If I pervert my most sacred principles from a source of strength into a leverage for being a bully, then I do not deserve to be a Paladin anymore.

If they are unwilling to take up their responsibilities, I will do my best to preserve as much life as I can; if that means overthrowing two insane dynasties that place their feud over the lives of the people..

Then I have a sword and I know how to use it.

Satinavian
2016-02-10, 02:38 AM
Exactly. Special emphasis on what I bolded. I do not see men who see women as not people as people, I see them as monsters to be put down.
I think that is is too much.

People are pretty good in rationalizing the culture they grew up with. Even if the women are treated extremely bad, i don't think, they would be thankful at all for some stranger butchering their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons because of cultural superiority. Actually such an action would be eben worse than what those men did.

That is why "exporting civilization/western values" and "bringing freedom, culture and enlightenement to those barbarians" are pretty difficult and doing it by excessive force is seen as downright evil. Killing half the population is certainly excessive and the wrong way.


You totally can impose your values without killing everyone. Especcially totalitarian regimes like the other side are pretty good at it because they don't value tolerance and individual freedom.




If they are unwilling to take up their responsibilities, I will do my best to preserve as much life as I can; if that means overthrowing two insane dynasties that place their feud over the lives of the people..

Then I have a sword and I know how to use it.So instead of one war you want to start two succession crises/civil wars ? And overthrow two legitimate gouvernments, that are not evil ?
If the peace is that frail, there probably are a lot of compelling reasons to go to war. It's more likely than not the dynasties are actually pressing for peace, as they are the ones that actually made the peace treaty.

Also, you won't force the two to do their duty but are totally fine with killing them if they don't ? How does that work ?

Coidzor
2016-02-10, 02:56 AM
OP's very 1st scenario just sounds like a town of Kender.

I'm changing my answer to calling in whatever favors and taking whatever suicide missions I have to in order to get an exterminatus called on the planet for harboring Kender.

icefractal
2016-02-10, 03:57 AM
Also, you specifically said:
"They think women are nothing more than objects and child-bearers". Not just that women have fewer rights or respect, but that they are effectively not even people.Was going to say the same thing. Maybe you were thinking of a situation where women have less rights but are still considered people, but that's not what you wrote. So that's a system that ****s over 50% of the populace. I think even a pretty dystopian megacorp is not hitting 50%.

Which brings us to the second thing - now you're describing the megacorp as Nazi-like; in the OP they were described more like 1984 at worst, maybe even more like Brave New World. That's still bad - and you'll note my response was to oppose both - but not to the same extent. It feels like you're moving the goal-posts.

Re: The doomsday device. I ignored it completely. I ignored it because sticking a doomsday device in a supposed ethical dilemma is like taking a chess game and dropping a bowling ball onto the board. If it's really so serious, I guess we have to drop everything and stop it - which is boring and not even a dilemma. So - nix that element, seriously.

Lorsa
2016-02-10, 08:42 AM
I made these up in a different thread (not mine), but everyone seems to be ignoring me... How would you guys react in these wacky scenarios?

I realize that my last post perhaps was a bit short. While I am normally an easy-going person who believes people should enjoy whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt other people, something about your "ethical quagmires" ticked me off to no end. I believe it was the tone of your start post, that you claim people are "ignoring you", with the implication that we are somehow duty bound to answer your quagmires just because you happened to post them on the web.

So, if you go on the web, demand that people reply, you better have something good to say. I'm hoping you will, eventually, come up with better ethical problems, which is why (and partly because most of them rubbed me the wrong way), I will explain in more detail what I think of them.


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!

This one falls flat on its own absurdity. "Wacky" scenarios is one thing, completely illogical is another. There is no way possible that an entire economy operates on theft. If there truly is no currency and people just go around taking what they want, then it really isn't theft anymore, is it? Theft is the illegal act of taking property that belongs to someone else. The situation you describes is a city where this not only is legal, they seem to have no regard for private property whatsoever.

That's why it isn't even a question. If you are in a place that doesn't have private property as a thing (or any kind of property for that matter), and where "theft" is legal, why NOT take what you want? It's expected of you. No one will lift an eyebrow. You didn't actually do anything wrong. It's not an ethical dilemma, it's an obvious choice in a civilization that couldn't function.

What's even worse, you try to give some form of "logical" reason why a baker would bake food for other people so they can steal it by "explaining" that the king stole his daughter and is blackmailing him.

The obvious question then is; did the king do this with every single craftsman or laborer in the city? Does he have a harem of daughters, and do people somehow accept this without revolting? How come all craftsman in the city have children in the first place?

If you see something is logically flawed, the best course of action is to drop it, not try to add ad-hoc explanations that are even more illogical.


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 standard "do you believe in assisted suicide to alleviate pain" dilemma is just that. Standard. I'm not sure why it should be any different if it's a bullywog.

If you had just left it there and accepted the "we use our magical powers to heal him, duh!" answer, which is obvious for any roleplaying group, it would have been fine.

But you didn't stop there. Somehow, the bullywog is, in fact, suicidal, and will fight you to the death if you heal him. Which, of course, is an incredibly stupid act. Are bullywogs somehow known to be depressed idiots or what am I missing?

If people heal you when you ask them to kill you, they are probably not inclined to just kill you outright if you pick a fight with them. More likely, they value your life more than you do yourself. Thus, it would be much smarter to thank them and then go throw yourself off a cliff. Otherwise you risk them overpowering you and bringing you to some idiotic suicide watch or whatever.

Seriously, what reaction where you hoping for? Clearly you didn't want to let people "get off easy" by simply healing him, thus adding this extra, very illogical, description. I mean how does that add anything to the ethical dilemma? First off, when you choose to end his suffering or heal him, you clearly don't know that he is suicidal, so it can't affect your decision. Secondly, if you DO save his life first, do you really think you would be the kind of person who gets so damn angry you switch mode completely and kill him? No, that's not how people would react, they would try to save him again, this time from himself.

So, as you see, by trying to make it something else than the very standard "assisted suicide when facing painful death" question, you instead turned it into a non-question.


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??

This one is actually somewhat interesting, at least on the surface. However, it does have some very intrinsic problems.

I mean, the first obvious answer is to keep quiet. If the life of two people didn't weight heavier than one secret to a friend, the countless of lives that would be lost in the war certainly does.

However, how DOES the paladin know the war will surely continue tor 100 more years? Did he do divination? Even in most roleplaying settings, the future is usually uncertain. So there's no surely, only "probably" or "might". Why are you trying to make sure a strong statement in your ethical question (again), that clearly defies reality? Why not say that "it's likely the war will continue" or something similar? You are in effect trying to say "choose between war and holding a secret to a friend that he might want to know". For a paladin, the epitome of GOOD, that isn't really much of a choice. Especially not considering they aren't married yet, so the princess isn't really beholden to any promise she didn't make.

That's at first glance though. Looking at it a bit more carefully, one can clearly see a future problem.

This problem lies in how the paladin managed to walk in on the princess and the knight in the first place. Considering the paladin didn't know her, it means she let a random stranger walk in while she was having sex. Didn't she lock the door? Did the incident take place at an open location?

If she is being so indiscreet and non-careful, most likely the prince will find out soon enough anyway. Which means you have a choice between war now or war later. Not much of a choice either is it?

One can only wonder if the princess clearly wanting to get caught before the marriage can only mean she doesn't believe in the truce / alliance, and is trying to sabotage it. If that's the case, it doesn't really matter what you do, so the ethical dilemma is a bit void.

The only reasonable course of action is to try and talk to the princess calmly, to find out what she really wants, see if there's any hope she prefers peace over war, and if so, talk to both her and the prince to try and make their union as smooth as possible. If they both value peace over war, they shouldn't have any problem accepting a marriage regardless of potential adultery, and if they don't value peace over war, well... then the countries are screwed anyway and you're better off trying to form a new government.

It has the potential to be an interesting dilemma, but unfortunately you are trying to strong-arm it into a two-choice scenario, where there is clearly one really bad choice (war). Also, on closer inspection, it seems as though the war is unavoidable. So again, not much of a choice.



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?

You do know that the communist ideal is not an equal share, but rather a share depending on their need right? Any form of group who would give the exact same amount of food to a teenage boy as a three-year old is simply being downright stupid. If you give fully grown men, who spend most of their time being physically active (fighting) the exact same amount of calories you give to elderly men who mostly sit around all day, the fully grown men will either starve to death, or the elderly will become obese, depending on the calories. Which one is it, and why would any leader be so stupid as to have this scenario taking place?

Of course their warriors should get more than the elderly. If they don't, THEY will starve to death.

So assuming that the food is rationed as such that everyone at least survives, the warriors are then trying to starve the elderly on account of them getting a slightly higher caloric intake. The resistance ideals were clearly based on defending the meek (seriously, why not weak?) and helpless, so assuming I believe in those ideals, it is again not much of a choice to stop the warrior-mutineer. If I didn't believe in those ideals, I probably wouldn't be there anyway, right? So where's the ethical dilemma? The answer is built into the premise of the question.

Now, if the leader is truly giving equal shares to everyone, he is being utterly stupid, so I would make sure to remove him from the position myself. I want to protect the week and helpless after all, what he is up to nobody knows.



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?

This one is so extremely vague in how events occur that I again wonder why you didn't simply leave them out. Don't try to rationalize a somewhat unlikely ethical dilemma by some weird story that doesn't make half of a sense.

Just say "the PCs accidentally kill someone, but an innocent person gets the blame and is going to jail for it". That's all you need to say.

This is probably the best of all your quagmires. There is a clear ethical dilemma with no one right answer. It depends on the alignment of the PCs obviously.

What I would do? Come forward and explain the situation, as I am assuming the guards / judges are clever enough to understand an accident when they see one. If they're clearly incompetent / corrupt and this is well known, I would instead let the guy go to jail and then do a jailbreak to get him out. Seems only fair to help him, which is much easier from the outside than the inside.

Assuming this is D&D, the truth of the situation can easily be resolved by magic, which again makes it less of an ethical conundrum.



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.

How can killing my father ever be an interesting ethical question? It's obviously NOT the way to go about this. So there's again one obvious answer; to donate my own kidney.

If you are the kind of person that would indeed kill your father, you are also the kind of person that wouldn't just let the love of your life leave you, rather you would kidnap her and "make her" love you (or take your revenge or whatever). With absolutely no morals (which killing your father implies), why care about some stupid girl's emotions?

Since you didn't know, at the time of choosing to donate your kidney (seriously, killing your father was a choice? seriously?), which is again the obvious way to go if you love someone (are you really going to let the love of your life die? seriously?), that she would leave you afterwards, it's a non-choice. That you added the bit about her leaving you means you are more interested in what we do after than any ethical question regarding if we'd donate a kidney or not.

So, again, where is the ethical choice? What can you do? Nothing really. All that happens is that you become angry, frustrated and possibly more cynical about the world. It's not like you can go and take your kidney back. Or if you imply that is a choice, why not simply say "are you evil and doesn't care about the life of others, or do you value other's lives"?



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?

This one is semi-interesting I admit. Unfortunately, it is again quite obvious. If you can save them, you do so. I don't think there's much of an ethical choice in regards to "life over culture". They're going to kill two people for marrying each other. How is that a good ethical dilemma? Any sane person would save them.

If you're implying that people can choose to actively destroy the culture, that's a different story, but could be phrased in a much better way. Such as "would you try to actively change or fight a culture which punishes people by death for inter-racial marriage". This one even has real-world historical inspiration to draw from. It has actually happened.

So yeah, if I was a PC, capable enough of saving two people from a mob of elves, I would save them. There really isn't any other ethical choice that is good (which I assume my PCs are if they care about ethical dilemmas). There's really nothing to do about the culture, unfortunately, most likely there are bigger evils to fight.



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?

Yeah, now you ended up in "la-la" land again with your scenario. This is just so absurd I don't know where to start.

First it seems like you wanted to present a horrible evil regime, and then halfway through realized that they weren't really all that evil, so you somehow added the "building a World Ending Device" bit. Two questions immediately springs to mind. How come it is publicly (or at least known to me), that they are building such a device? And why on Earth are they doing it in the first place? If they are an evil regime ruling, what seems to be according to you the entire planet, then WHY WOULD THEY DESTROY IT? It doesn't make any form of sense. It's so illogical that I wonder why you added this. But since you did, it really is NO CHOICE again to do everything in your power to stop a ****ing WORLD ENDING DEVICE, even if it means siding with misogynistic rebels. The world ending is, by and far, the worst possible outcome in any form of ethical dilemma. Minus infinity on the badness scale.

Second, it seems like you wanted to present some alternative choice that was also bad. Unfortunately, without the doomsday device, the "evil" regime doesn't seem all that evil compared to a culture that treats 50% of the population as objects. So yeah, without the doomsday device, it's not much ethical choice to simply say "I will start my own rebel group", or alternatively "I will side with the regime that treats most people decently, instead of just 50%".

Now my question is how or why this evil regime even lets these rebels live? Some nomadic rebels in the mountains are allowed to be "dissidents" against a MEGACORP which has an army of STEM-trained professionals and enough resources to build a device that can END THE WORLD???? In which universe?

The only conclusion must be that the rebels aren't actually rebels at all, and just some harmless nomadic people in the mountains, with no interest at all in trying to overthrow the regime. As long as more people don't join and they become a problem, the megacorp doesn't care. So then your question is "which society do you want to live in?". Which isn't so much of an ethical quesiton as it's a matter of personal preference.

Douche
2016-02-10, 10:30 AM
I've already made my statements clear on why I thought it was being reasonable. This was never meant to a Christopher Nolan-tier story. Sorry if I angered anyone.

On the two most controversial topics - I do agree with you all that women's rights are important. I took pretty much the same approach everyone else did towards the princess.

As for me telling you that the war will continue, or giving you such details that you wouldn't know - that is the "word of God". not calling myself God, but rather the idea that the author provides details to the fans that were not apparent in the work (or something. Maybe the exact definition is different). Like JK Rowling making up a bunch of details to "enhance" the story and remain relevant. Point being, that was a detail I felt like adding. In that sense, these are details that would have been made apparent after the fact. I simply provided them to you ahead of time. Did you know the bullywog was going to attack you before you healed him? No, but you accepted that it would happen and were able to put yourself in the mindset that you wouldn't have known that outcome ahead of time.

You will note that I also used the qualifier "surely" which is surely something people say when they want to add the perception of certainty to their statement. If you pay someone to fix your computer and they blow it up, you would say "Surely I deserve a refund, since you have in fact worsened the situation I paid you to rectify". You're not 100% sure that they will give you a refund, but you're pretty certain you're entitled to one.

Also, to the person above me - I got the idea for the Mutiny directly from a historical film called "Defiance". That "idiotic socialist leader" is considered a hero today, the amount of food was like 2 spoonfuls of stew, and he was portrayed by Daniel Craig. When you get portrayed by Daniel Craig, you can call whomever you like an idiot for saving lives. That same film can also apply to the evil regime situation. Go watch the film. Anyway, you will note that I said they were nomadic. They're always on the move, that's why the evil regime can't simply hunt them down.

(Edited to be less inflammatory)

Also, ya know, having chilled out and given it some thought - these are ethical quagmires, guys. I did not claim to be creating moral quandaries. It was right there on the packaging. Quagmires are marshy areas. No matter where you step, you're gonna get mud in your boot. A quandary is more akin to a puzzle or a riddle.

Segev
2016-02-10, 10:46 AM
Clearly, the solution to each of these is to expand your army of undead minions with the fools who create these problems and expect you to deal with them. :smallcool:

OldTrees1
2016-02-10, 11:38 AM
@Douche

I am sorry you felt attacked. You wanted more responder-responder crosstalk/discussion and less OP-responder arguing.

This is tough to create given the structure of your opening post. If you had been inactive during the thread then we would have ended up with a list of responses and little to no crosstalk/discussion. The method you used of clarifying the cases via elaboration with authority did not seem to work. Although I do not understand why given other examples and the necessity for Word of God to clarify unanswered questions about the cases.

My advice for your next such thread (because I am sure you will want to talk about these kinds of situations again), would be to use few (more than 1 but less than several) cases where each case is concise(to avoid unnecessary lines). Then clarify with authority but discuss without authority.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-10, 01:22 PM
I'll play, on a few of these.


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??
Forgiveness is divine. The paladin doesn't tell anyone, but he helps her tell the prince about it (she has to tell him though, or he'll do it himself), and talks to the prince about forgiving her, for her sake, for his and for that of the rest of the world.


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?
The main objective is to have an effective resistance group left to fight the evil empire with. Whichever way this fight goes, they will lose a lot of people and social coherence. If it becomes a fight at all, everyone has already lost. Step in and placate the warriors, I'd say. Get the leader to promise that the campaign will shift to being more focused on securing food for their rebel group, so that everyone will have more. The really hard part is going to be actually delivering on that promise.


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?
There are no other witnesses, right? Than why couldn't that guy who just ran off over there not have done it? It might be a tad evil and definitely chaotic, but it's not like they actually meant to kill that person.


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.
That second part is irrelevant, you don't know that when you make the decision. Its just there to make you feel bad about whatever you chose. I wouldn't kill my father if I could keep everyone alive and just give a kidney.


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?
It may be very modern and enlightened of me, but insulting someone's culture seems like a lesser evil than taking someones life. I'd very much prefer to end it without killing anyone myself, muscling our way to the couple, freeing them and retreating into the town hall or something, but if needed I'll make an example of someone. As an adventurer I'll never come back there again anyway.


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?
I'd probably leave, secure in the knowledge that the lesser evil regime seems to have the situation under control. I might set up a people smuggling ring to get people away from that whole forsaken country though. I might even start putting people on little boats and shoving them off into some sort of inland sea with a rich, free country on the other side of it just to see how the other players react.

icefractal
2016-02-10, 01:52 PM
I took pretty much the same approach everyone else did towards the princess.Umm, well ...
As a lawful paladin, I believe it would be my duty to ensure peace. I would do this by striking down the knight and make the princess watch the life drain from his eyes. This is what your midnight trysts have done. Now he's dead. Thousands more will die - just like him - if you want to shirk your duty and hurt the prince again. Point driven home.Perhaps not precisely the same approach. I have to say that murdering someone - either as an object lesson or to avoid embarrassment for your friend - is not remotely what I would call a good-aligned action.

I mean, loyalty to friends is great, it's entirely in keeping for a Paladin, but there are limits. That's the difference between a LN knight and a Paladin - when your liege tells you to execute some innocent village because they offended him, the knight might say yes, but the Paladin says "No, and if you persist on an evil path, I'll have to oppose your reign." Or something of that nature; they certainly doesn't go around committing evil because a friend/ruler told them to, is my point.

That said, this one is pretty good at being a dilemma. I could easily see a Paladin character deciding on either telling the prince or keeping it secret, and I wouldn't say either is fall-worthy - although the Paladin probably won't be happy about it.

Douche
2016-02-10, 02:06 PM
Umm, well ... Perhaps not precisely the same approach. I have to say that murdering someone - either as an object lesson or to avoid embarrassment for your friend - is not remotely what I would call a good-aligned action.

I mean, loyalty to friends is great, it's entirely in keeping for a Paladin, but there are limits. That's the difference between a LN knight and a Paladin - when your liege tells you to execute some innocent village because they offended him, the knight might say yes, but the Paladin says "No, and if you persist on an evil path, I'll have to oppose your reign." Or something of that nature; they certainly doesn't go around committing evil because a friend/ruler told them to, is my point.

That said, this one is pretty good at being a dilemma. I could easily see a Paladin character deciding on either telling the prince or keeping it secret, and I wouldn't say either is fall-worthy - although the Paladin probably won't be happy about it.

Thanks for the compliment!

The most popular approach was either "negotiate with the prince" or "keep the secret, possibly exiling the knight" I just decided to kill the knight instead, thereby reducing the number of secret-keepers by 1 and preserving the princess' reputation.

Somehow, by killing the knight he becomes a noble and I'm in trouble, but y'all think it's gonna go as smooth as butter when you decide to exile him?

Anyway, it's trading one life for thousands. Classic morality scenario. Prince didn't tell me to kill anyone. I'm a sassy independent paladin that don't need no ruler, and I'm okay with losing my paladinity. Am I repeating myself too much in this topic?

[do you guys see how I foresee the consequences of my actions and accept them? Instead of getting mad about it when you guys ask me to think about it differently?]

Red Fel
2016-02-10, 02:19 PM
Somehow, by killing the knight he becomes a noble and I'm in trouble, but y'all think it's gonna go as smooth as butter when you decide to exile him?

"Ethical dilemma" has nothing to do with "smooth as butter." That's not a consideration. It's not about what is easy, it's about what is right.

In the example, there are several "right" considerations, which is what makes it a dilemma:
Doing right by your friend the Prince by telling him the truth
Doing right by your friend the Prince by sparing his feelings
Doing right by the people by taking actions that would prevent a war and the deaths of thousands
Doing right by your moral code by standing for the truth
Doing right by the people by going to the Prince and Princess' parents and telling them to stop being such utter morons and control their idiot children
There are a lot of "right" things here, and they're in conflict. That's what creates an ethical dilemma.

Know what doesn't create an ethical dilemma? "Persuading the Prince to send the Knight into exile instead of killing him won't go over well." That's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of easy and hard. And it's irrelevant.


Anyway, it's trading one life for thousands. Classic morality scenario. Prince didn't tell me to kill anyone. I'm a sassy independent paladin that don't need no ruler, and I'm okay with losing my paladinity. Am I repeating myself too much in this topic?

See, that's not a decision you get to make and call yourself a Paladin. The Paladin doesn't get to decide who lives and who dies. Sacrificing yourself to save others? That's noble. Sacrificing someone else - against that person's will - to save thousands? That's murder.

You can't say "I'm a Paladin who's okay with losing my Paladinity," because that's not a Paladin. It's not that the Paladin will go out of his way to avoid falling; rather, a Paladin is the sort of person who would not, on a whim, indulge in the sort of behavior that triggers a fall. He's the sort of person who faces such a decision wracked with guilt and self-loathing. He falls because he felt compelled to violate his code, because he failed to be the person he aspired to be, because he failed to uphold the high standards he represents.

You're not describing a Paladin, a person called by his sacred honor and unimpeachable character to uphold the highest standards. You're describing some bozo who found a magic sword, received holy powers, and doesn't care a whit if he loses them tomorrow.


[do you guys see how I foresee the consequences of my actions and accept them? Instead of getting mad about it when you guys ask me to think about it differently?]

I think that OldTrees has the right of it. This feels more confrontational than it has to be. And part of it is that you seem to have in your mind a "right" answer for each of these scenarios, and are willing to invent facts such that anyone who disagrees with you can be proven "wrong." At this point, they're not so much "ethical quagmires" as they are "Hey guys, I came up with puzzles and I know the answers, can you read my mind?"

I get that you have a way your mind works. That's fine. We all do. (Mine is "badly.") And we don't all agree on them. But presenting these things as ethical dilemmas suggests that they are open to discussion, discourse and disagreement. Instead, you seem determined to show how your answer is the "right" one, which makes these not ethical dilemmas at all. If there were a right answer, there wouldn't be a dilemma. Right?

Segev
2016-02-10, 02:44 PM
I get that you have a way your mind works. That's fine. We all do. (Mine is "badly.")

Red, you're thesaurus is betraying you again. In this context, I think you mean "malevolently."

I recommend a month in the language-mugging corps for your Thesaurus for its treachery.

icefractal
2016-02-10, 02:51 PM
Anyway, it's trading one life for thousands. Classic morality scenario.Ok, so you've decided that maintaining peace is more important than upholding the truth. Legitimate decision, no argument there. However, what purpose does killing the knight serve?

Your goal is to make sure the princess and knight quit screwing, and make sure the prince doesn't find out. You know what works better than an unexpected murder that might make the prince suspicious anyway? Just order the knight to go far away from the princess (in another country, ideally) and stay there. You're a Paladin, you should have enough Charisma to intimate the hell out of them (the princess and knight) easily, and furthermore you can just threaten to tell the prince if they refuse.

PersonMan
2016-02-10, 03:07 PM
Somehow, by killing the knight he becomes a noble and I'm in trouble

A knight is a noble, so I'm not sure why he's "becoming" one.

Douche
2016-02-10, 03:16 PM
Ok, so you've decided that maintaining peace is more important than upholding the truth. Legitimate decision, no argument there. However, what purpose does killing the knight serve?

Your goal is to make sure the princess and knight quit screwing, and make sure the prince doesn't find out. You know what works better than an unexpected murder that might make the prince suspicious anyway? Just order the knight to go far away from the princess (in another country, ideally) and stay there. You're a Paladin, you should have enough Charisma to intimate the hell out of them (the princess and knight) easily, and furthermore you can just threaten to tell the prince if they refuse.

I already stated the purpose in my original response to the scenarios (post #61)


"Ethical dilemma" has nothing to do with "smooth as butter." That's not a consideration. It's not about what is easy, it's about what is right.

In the example, there are several "right" considerations, which is what makes it a dilemma:
Doing right by your friend the Prince by telling him the truth
Doing right by your friend the Prince by sparing his feelings
Doing right by the people by taking actions that would prevent a war and the deaths of thousands
Doing right by your moral code by standing for the truth
Doing right by the people by going to the Prince and Princess' parents and telling them to stop being such utter morons and control their idiot children
There are a lot of "right" things here, and they're in conflict. That's what creates an ethical dilemma.

Know what doesn't create an ethical dilemma? "Persuading the Prince to send the Knight into exile instead of killing him won't go over well." That's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of easy and hard. And it's irrelevant.

Why is not intimidating the princess an option though?


See, that's not a decision you get to make and call yourself a Paladin. The Paladin doesn't get to decide who lives and who dies. Sacrificing yourself to save others? That's noble. Sacrificing someone else - against that person's will - to save thousands? That's murder.

You can't say "I'm a Paladin who's okay with losing my Paladinity," because that's not a Paladin. It's not that the Paladin will go out of his way to avoid falling; rather, a Paladin is the sort of person who would not, on a whim, indulge in the sort of behavior that triggers a fall. He's the sort of person who faces such a decision wracked with guilt and self-loathing. He falls because he felt compelled to violate his code, because he failed to be the person he aspired to be, because he failed to uphold the high standards he represents.

You're not describing a Paladin, a person called by his sacred honor and unimpeachable character to uphold the highest standards. You're describing some bozo who found a magic sword, received holy powers, and doesn't care a whit if he loses them tomorrow.

Man, I never thought of that. I believed I was roleplaying effectively by doing whatever it takes to maintain order. I guess I'm wrong. I always imagined Paladins as self-righteous smiters of the infidels. It's a pretty fine line, if you ask me.. Still, how do you justify killing 10000000 unnamed thugs in your adventures n sidequests n such? What if they were just misunderstood?


I think that OldTrees has the right of it. This feels more confrontational than it has to be. And part of it is that you seem to have in your mind a "right" answer for each of these scenarios, and are willing to invent facts such that anyone who disagrees with you can be proven "wrong." At this point, they're not so much "ethical quagmires" as they are "Hey guys, I came up with puzzles and I know the answers, can you read my mind?"

I get that you have a way your mind works. That's fine. We all do. (Mine is "badly.") And we don't all agree on them. But presenting these things as ethical dilemmas suggests that they are open to discussion, discourse and disagreement. Instead, you seem determined to show how your answer is the "right" one, which makes these not ethical dilemmas at all. If there were a right answer, there wouldn't be a dilemma. Right?


I was only providing extra details because it seemed like people wanted those questions answered. When people said "I leave thief city cuz this place is dumb" I reminded them that they are on the brink of starvation, but they're free to leave after they eat. Why didn't anyone just say they were playing a druid and cast Goodberry (5e spell)? hehehe. When Oldtrees himself asked for more details on the princess way back in Post 5, I provided them. I didn't think to myself "oh, man, how can I upset the most people with this situation before I even know this topic will reach 100 posts".... I spent like 30 seconds or less dreaming up each of those scenarios. I didn't come up with intricate backstories for the reason the two kingdoms are at war, or what their main exports are.. I added detail as the need arose. That's called improvising.

I also suppose that me being sassy & independent didn't get the point across that I'm trying to be less serious here.

Please dissect other peoples posts now. I don't like being the center of attention here, after spending 2 days trying to explain myself.

Wardog
2016-02-10, 03:50 PM
As for me telling you that the war will continue, or giving you such details that you wouldn't know - that is the "word of God". not calling myself God, but rather the idea that the author provides details to the fans that were not apparent in the work (or something. Maybe the exact definition is different).

The issue wasn't "how do we, the reader, know" but "how does the person in the scenario know".

Real ethical quagmires tend to be the result of having to make judgements on incomplete information, or without necessarily knowing the consequences of every choice. Otherwise we could just create a formula, plug in the variables, solve to maximize happiness / lives saved / etc.

(Personally, I think this is the main problem with things like the Trolley Problem, and the reason why most people reject the most "rational" solution. Because it involves a situation that is extremely unlikely, with an impossible level of knowledge about the results of your actions, and implies you should take an action (pushing someone in front of a train) that - in the majority of real-world equivilent scenarios - would make things worse and clearly be unethical).

You can set up a scenario where the consequences of not doing something that would normally be seen as evil are so serious that it instead becomes the moral choice. (Maybe the megacorp in the other scenario is building its doomsday device because they have discovered that destroying the world is the only way to stop the multiverse being destroyed). But if it is implausible, and especially if the people involved wouldn't have any way to know that it was actually necessary in this case, it isn't really a useful or interesting point of discussion.


The other problem with a lot of the scenarios you've give: It's fine to propose a scenario, and then, when people have given their answer, say : "OK, now suppose it is slightly different in that ***. What would you do know?"

What isn't reasonable is to propose a scenario, then, when people have given their answer, act surprised or criticise their choice because they hadn't considered some aspect that you hadn't told them and which fundamentally changes the nature of the scenario.

Segev
2016-02-10, 03:57 PM
I'm telling you, undead armies solve all these problems.

Nation of thieves? Steal their lives and corpses. Animate and move on. Unfaithful princess threatening to prolong a war? Animate the dead of both armies and take over as both nations' military. Prince objects? Feed him to the ghast you made of his Princess, and animate him as a skeleton. Megacorp? Replace its workers with zombies. by the time they notice where the zombies are coming from, you'll already own the labor market. Chaotic nomads? Turn their women into vampires; culture and art preserved, but nobody'll treat them like objects. etc.!

Douche
2016-02-10, 04:18 PM
The issue wasn't "how do we, the reader, know" but "how does the person in the scenario know".

You know that the princess would be executed for cheating on the prince. You know that the two nations are in a tenuous peace pending this marriage. Come to your own conclusion, then.


You can set up a scenario where the consequences of not doing something that would normally be seen as evil are so serious that it instead becomes the moral choice. (Maybe the megacorp in the other scenario is building its doomsday device because they have discovered that destroying the world is the only way to stop the multiverse being destroyed). But if it is implausible, and especially if the people involved wouldn't have any way to know that it was actually necessary in this case, it isn't really a useful or interesting point of discussion.


Ok, fair enough. 30 seconds, guys. I should not have included the doomsday device. Then it would've been a more balanced decision.


The other problem with a lot of the scenarios you've give: It's fine to propose a scenario, and then, when people have given their answer, say : "OK, now suppose it is slightly different in that ***. What would you do know?"

What isn't reasonable is to propose a scenario, then, when people have given their answer, act surprised or criticise their choice because they hadn't considered some aspect that you hadn't told them and which fundamentally changes the nature of the scenario.

Please cite such an instance where I have changed the parameters of a single scenario, because I honestly don't perceive it as such.

When I was wondering why people hated the woman-haters so much, I may have drawn some parallels to historical scenarios - but that's all they were, parallels. Where did I actually change a detail? (discounting the woman-hating leader not being chaotic evil)



All in all, I think people were just mad that I said you can't change a culture by snapping your fingers. I don't really think there's any need to justify that claim.



I'm telling you, undead armies solve all these problems.

Nation of thieves? Steal their lives and corpses. Animate and move on. Unfaithful princess threatening to prolong a war? Animate the dead of both armies and take over as both nations' military. Prince objects? Feed him to the ghast you made of his Princess, and animate him as a skeleton. Megacorp? Replace its workers with zombies. by the time they notice where the zombies are coming from, you'll already own the labor market. Chaotic nomads? Turn their women into vampires; culture and art preserved, but nobody'll treat them like objects. etc.!


You're right. Life is a cruel cycle of writhing unquenchable desire and disappointment. The only truth is in death.

Segev wins the topic, guys. Thanks for playing

comicshorse
2016-02-10, 05:23 PM
Somehow, by killing the knight he becomes a noble and I'm in trouble, but y'all think it's gonna go as smooth as butter when you decide to exile him?



Knights are Nobles, raised above the common people by service to their Lords

Damnit Ninjaed


Anyway, it's trading one life for thousands.

It's only trading one life (probably two) for thousands if it works. If it doesn't its getting two people killed for nothing. I've already stated why I don't think it will work

OldTrees1
2016-02-11, 12:16 AM
I think that OldTrees has the right of it. This feels more confrontational than it has to be. And part of it is that you seem to have in your mind a "right" answer for each of these scenarios, and are willing to invent facts such that anyone who disagrees with you can be proven "wrong." At this point, they're not so much "ethical quagmires" as they are "Hey guys, I came up with puzzles and I know the answers, can you read my mind?"


I was only providing extra details because it seemed like people wanted those questions answered. When people said "I leave thief city cuz this place is dumb" I reminded them that they are on the brink of starvation, but they're free to leave after they eat. Why didn't anyone just say they were playing a druid and cast Goodberry (5e spell)? hehehe. When Oldtrees himself asked for more details on the princess way back in Post 5, I provided them. I didn't think to myself "oh, man, how can I upset the most people with this situation before I even know this topic will reach 100 posts".... I spent like 30 seconds or less dreaming up each of those scenarios. I didn't come up with intricate backstories for the reason the two kingdoms are at war, or what their main exports are.. I added detail as the need arose. That's called improvising.

Thank you. However I don't think Douche had ulterior motives when inventing facts to our questions.


Reminding people of information, especially vital information like the starvation, they missed is important.
Answering clarifying questions is important for providing missing morally relevant information.


So yes, Red Fel you are right that there developed an OP vs responders confrontational tone that hindered the thread. However I think your explanation for the origin of the tone is either incomplete or incorrect.

Coidzor
2016-02-11, 02:45 AM
To be fair, I thought the doomsday device was the ultimate goal.

Y'know, prevent the planet going kaboom because that's where all my stuff is, and whether I'd try to work within the system or underground inside of it, possibly running in the shadows or something vs. trying to whip up a bunch of backwards degenerates who are the only free people available to forge into an army for a direct confrontation without having to deal with reindoctrinating drones underneath the watchful eye of the dystopia.


Clearly, the solution to each of these is to expand your army of undead minions with the fools who create these problems and expect you to deal with them. :smallcool:

What the world needs now is skeletons, sweet skeletons~

Lorsa
2016-02-11, 04:23 AM
I've already made my statements clear on why I thought it was being reasonable. This was never meant to a Christopher Nolan-tier story. Sorry if I angered anyone.

And I am sorry if I upset you, if you post things in good faith you don't deserve to be attacked by random strangers. I don't know why your scenarios made me so riled up. My guess is that in general I enjoy debating ethical issues (even though that also gets me going quite often), and was perhaps hoping for something a little bit different.

Unfortunately, the scenarios that are interesting gets clouded in the haze of the first - which is just hard to wrap your head around. When reading text, the feeling you get from the beginning is hard to shake and shapes the overall view.


On the two most controversial topics - I do agree with you all that women's rights are important. I took pretty much the same approach everyone else did towards the princess.

As for topics being controversial, I have a feeling that your idea about the regime vs. rebels didn't translate very well into text. That's just a guess though, maybe we did get the right idea at the start.



As for me telling you that the war will continue, or giving you such details that you wouldn't know - that is the "word of God". not calling myself God, but rather the idea that the author provides details to the fans that were not apparent in the work (or something. Maybe the exact definition is different). Like JK Rowling making up a bunch of details to "enhance" the story and remain relevant. Point being, that was a detail I felt like adding. In that sense, these are details that would have been made apparent after the fact. I simply provided them to you ahead of time. Did you know the bullywog was going to attack you before you healed him? No, but you accepted that it would happen and were able to put yourself in the mindset that you wouldn't have known that outcome ahead of time.

You will note that I also used the qualifier "surely" which is surely something people say when they want to add the perception of certainty to their statement. If you pay someone to fix your computer and they blow it up, you would say "Surely I deserve a refund, since you have in fact worsened the situation I paid you to rectify". You're not 100% sure that they will give you a refund, but you're pretty certain you're entitled to one.

Alright, I understand. Unfortunately in this case providing extra information to the reader makes it harder to put yourself in the scenario. It can be done, of course, but it's better to let the choices stand on their own.

For example, you could change the bullywog scenario to:

"...dragon etc... a bullywog comes crashing to the ground, breaks most of his bones and begs you to end his misery. When you expend your magical resources to heal him back to health, he responds by outrage and attacks you, claiming you are horrible people for disregarding his wishes."

That puts the choice in the second part instead of the first, and also adds that the bullywog believes you have no regard for his personal freedom.

And the princess scenario could be written us:

"Two nations that have long been at war are about to seal their alliance with a royal marriage. As you recently became good friends with the prince, he invites you to be best man. At the day of the wedding, you learn that the princess of the other country recently have had sexual relations with a knight. Do you inform the prince, knowing that the war might continue, or do you keep it a secret?"

Not sure if you felt that was an improvement or not, but at least to me it feels like a choice that is more open-ended.




Also, to the person above me - I got the idea for the Mutiny directly from a historical film called "Defiance". That "idiotic socialist leader" is considered a hero today, the amount of food was like 2 spoonfuls of stew, and he was portrayed by Daniel Craig. When you get portrayed by Daniel Craig, you can call whomever you like an idiot for saving lives. That same film can also apply to the evil regime situation. Go watch the film. Anyway, you will note that I said they were nomadic. They're always on the move, that's why the evil regime can't simply hunt them down.

Two spoonfuls of stew isn't enough to keep anyone from starvation, so I assume this was more of a short-term thing while being extra low on supplies. This makes the scenario somewhat different, more like:

"...part of group protecting the weak and defenseless... During a time when there's not nearly enough food to feed everyone, there is some debate for how to ration it, and the leader decides upon the simple solution of giving everyone an equal share until the group receives more supplies. Some of the fighting men wants to give more food to themselves at the expense of the elderly, and attempts to start a mutiny. Do you side with the fighters or the leader?"

It is possible I simply misunderstood your scenario somehow, as I believed they had X food, where X was not abundant, but still enough to feed them. In that situation, my "idiot" statement still holds, as if you split it into equal shares, some will get too much and others too little (assuming X is just enough). In the case you describe from the movie, it seems as though no one was getting enough food.

As I understood from reading up on Defiance, they weren't so much rebels as just trying to survive. They had no ambition of overthrowing the government, they were simply hoping to live long enough that someone else did. Which is what I expected from the "evil regime" scenario. The "rebels" aren't so much rebels as just people trying to stay out of the way. Which makes it less of an ethical choice, as there's no way they can topple the evil regime and somehow replace it with their misogynistic culture.



(Edited to be less inflammatory)

Also, ya know, having chilled out and given it some thought - these are ethical quagmires, guys. I did not claim to be creating moral quandaries. It was right there on the packaging. Quagmires are marshy areas. No matter where you step, you're gonna get mud in your boot. A quandary is more akin to a puzzle or a riddle.

I think most moral quandaries are made such that you will get mud on your boots regardless of what you do. Then it's a matter of how you prioritize your ethics.

Like this:

"You are a Cleric traveling across the land. Arriving at a remote village, you find a child suffering from a lethal disease. You ask the parents if you can heal her, but they refuse, claiming they'd rather let their child die than having her soul be contaminated by the blessings of your patron deity, as it will make her unworthy in the eyes of their god. Do you respect the parents wishes or heal the child anyway?"

Whatever you choose here will say something about your character: do you value people's lives over their freedom of choice, do you believe parents have the right to decide for their children or is the freedom of choice overridden by age?

In fact, answering enough of these questions from the eyes of a character you are trying to create would help determine your alignment.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-11, 04:31 AM
"You are a Cleric traveling across the land. Arriving at a remote village, you find a child suffering from a lethal disease. You ask the parents if you can heal her, but they refuse, claiming they'd rather let their child die than having her soul be contaminated by the blessings of your patron deity, as it will make her unworthy in the eyes of their god. Do you respect the parents wishes or heal the child anyway?"

Offer to just pray to their god together. You may serve a different deity, but as a cleric you respect all gods and faiths. Then, during prayer, a miracle happens. The parents will at first be too much in doubt to openly accuse you, and then you sneak off in the night, leaving them with the choice to either make their kid's life hell or just lie to the rest of the community and say it really was a miracle. And if they do go with option one, at least the kid is now healthy and has options like running away.

Why solve a moral quandary if you can just turn it into someone else's quandary?

Segev
2016-02-11, 09:45 AM
"Why worship so selfish a god as one who would deny your child health in this life and worth in the next? Mine has provided you a means to the miracle your child needs, and will not reject you in the after life even after a long, healthy life now. If your god is so venal as to reject your child because my god is responsible for the cure that returns your child's hope for life, should you not find a better one? I can show you a better way, in the service of a god who cares for you and your child, and provides blessings that you need in this life as well as salvation in the next!"

Alberic Strein
2016-02-11, 10:53 AM
My Gm dropped us an actual ethical quagmire which managed to split our party. It does require a bit of presentation, but here it is:

Pathfinder. You are in a kingdom on an island, this kingdom is in a terrible situation, it lost all its leaders half a century ago when a dungeon spawned in the old capitol, took the king and the whole royal lineage, with crowns and all that, and reappears once a month, before disappearing again. Nobody ascended to the throne, as one absolutely needs the blessed crown of the realm, and if one wants to avoid plagues having royal blood is needed. The kingdom is led by the only two surviving members of the king's council, the marshall of the realm, and the protector (yes, of the realm too.) These two allow adventurers to enter the dungeon, in search of adventure, riches, and recognition, in the hope they'll somehow find the crown and breathe life anew into the kingdom. They are both former explorers of the dungeon and are fairly high leveled. Your group entered the dungeon and survived, which is quite a feat, and did so a couple of times, earning you power undisputed, some influence, but you are still under the orders of the marshall and protector. During your last dungeon crawl, you managed to find the princess, held safe in a protective slumber... By a demon. Nay, not a mere demon, a shard of the soul of the demon lord, a being that would wipe the floor with a horseman of the apocalypse, whose soul has been broken and is being kept apart in a number of items. The princess having become one of the hosts, and accepted him as her patron. You still secure yourself a princess, and return from the dungeon to find the kingdom in the middle of a civil war. The situation kept worsening for the kingdom until the Marshall decided that the crown and royal blood could go to hell, he had managed to put his hands on a high level adventurer sworn to an absurdly powerful dragon, given her artifact-level armor which also served as a mind control device, and announced his claim to the throne. The Protector sent his paladin army against him, but they got toasted by the dragon so badly that only true resurrection could bring them back. Trying to decide what the proper course of action is, you hide the princess for a while, but she is discovered by the Protector and sent to him to be married.

The party is mostly T4 and T3, high levelled enough to take on either the Protector or Marshall, but dangerously low on magical items. They also own a town, but it is not fortified. The dragon and dragon rider are more than a threat and may very well wipe the entire group easily.
The Protector is an old friend of the Marshall and knows that he will join his cause should the protector be crowned king. The Protector himself does not care for power, however neither he, nor his order, nor the Marshall will bend the knee to a demon-lord possessed princess. The Protector is also a human supremacist.

The Marshall is ready to unite the kingdom through any necessary means. He is evil, not above mind controlling adventurers with powerful artifacts. He does believe to be the man best suited to lead the kingdom, but will bend the knee to someone he respects, and is marching his army towards the capitol.

The princess wants to be queen and desires power, a power that is rightfully hers, but she is under the orders of a demonic patron with very evil and very immediate plans from the kingdom. Should word get out about her state, quite a number of nobles would refuse to join her banner.

The demon lord is ready to leave his host if the princess desires it (she can be really easily convinced to) and if the party brings him to a certain place of great power. This, however, means furthering the plans of a being that the party can NOT take on should he be at full power, on top of whatever nefarious plans he may have.

What do?

as you reach the capitol to talk to the Protector about the whole "princess kidnapping" thingie, and get an audience, the Slayer of the team gets inside the room in which the princess is imprisoned, sees her crying, and goes absolutely ballistic, slicing the locked room open with his artifact level sword right in the middle of your negotiations, screaming at the top of his lungs for the paladins to try and smite evil him and see just bhow much they're ****ing up before he slices them to ribbons. The Slayer will not be persuaded to let the princess be married against her will and he is the most powerful fighter of the team. Quite a lot of resources are spent every fight to ward him against mind control effects to avoid a TPK.

(optional)

What do?

Segev
2016-02-11, 11:04 AM
My Gm dropped us an actual ethical quagmire which managed to split our party. It does require a bit of presentation, but here it is:

Pathfinder. You are in a kingdom on an island, this kingdom is in a terrible situation, it lost all its leaders half a century ago when a dungeon spawned in the old capitol, took the king and the whole royal lineage, with crowns and all that, and reappears once a month, before disappearing again. Nobody ascended to the throne, as one absolutely needs the blessed crown of the realm, and if one wants to avoid plagues having royal blood is needed. The kingdom is led by the only two surviving members of the king's council, the marshall of the realm, and the protector (yes, of the realm too.) These two allow adventurers to enter the dungeon, in search of adventure, riches, and recognition, in the hope they'll somehow find the crown and breathe life anew into the kingdom. They are both former explorers of the dungeon and are fairly high leveled. Your group entered the dungeon and survived, which is quite a feat, and did so a couple of times, earning you power undisputed, some influence, but you are still under the orders of the marshall and protector. During your last dungeon crawl, you managed to find the princess, held safe in a protective slumber... By a demon. Nay, not a mere demon, a shard of the soul of the demon lord, a being that would wipe the floor with a horseman of the apocalypse, whose soul has been broken and is being kept apart in a number of items. The princess having become one of the hosts, and accepted him as her patron. You still secure yourself a princess, and return from the dungeon to find the kingdom in the middle of a civil war. The situation kept worsening for the kingdom until the Marshall decided that the crown and royal blood could go to hell, he had managed to put his hands on a high level adventurer sworn to an absurdly powerful dragon, given her artifact-level armor which also served as a mind control device, and announced his claim to the throne. The Protector sent his paladin army against him, but they got toasted by the dragon so badly that only true resurrection could bring them back. Trying to decide what the proper course of action is, you hide the princess for a while, but she is discovered by the Protector and sent to him to be married.

The party is mostly T4 and T3, high levelled enough to take on either the Protector or Marshall, but dangerously low on magical items. They also own a town, but it is not fortified. The dragon and dragon rider are more than a threat and may very well wipe the entire group easily.
The Protector is an old friend of the Marshall and knows that he will join his cause should the protector be crowned king. The Protector himself does not care for power, however neither he, nor his order, nor the Marshall will bend the knee to a demon-lord possessed princess. The Protector is also a human supremacist.

The Marshall is ready to unite the kingdom through any necessary means. He is evil, not above mind controlling adventurers with powerful artifacts. He does believe to be the man best suited to lead the kingdom, but will bend the knee to someone he respects, and is marching his army towards the capitol.

The princess wants to be queen and desires power, a power that is rightfully hers, but she is under the orders of a demonic patron with very evil and very immediate plans from the kingdom. Should word get out about her state, quite a number of nobles would refuse to join her banner.

The demon lord is ready to leave his host if the princess desires it (she can be really easily convinced to) and if the party brings him to a certain place of great power. This, however, means furthering the plans of a being that the party can NOT take on should he be at full power, on top of whatever nefarious plans he may have.

What do?

as you reach the capitol to talk to the Protector about the whole "princess kidnapping" thingie, and get an audience, the Slayer of the team gets inside the room in which the princess is imprisoned, sees her crying, and goes absolutely ballistic, slicing the locked room open with his artifact level sword right in the middle of your negotiations, screaming at the top of his lungs for the paladins to try and smite evil him and see just bhow much they're ****ing up before he slices them to ribbons. The Slayer will not be persuaded to let the princess be married against her will and he is the most powerful fighter of the team. Quite a lot of resources are spent every fight to ward him against mind control effects to avoid a TPK.

(optional)

What do?
Depending on my character, I'd probably try to woo the princess, so she'll marry my PC happily. Either bargain with the demon or betray it to get it out of her...or try to corrupt it to be more aligned with its own individual self-interest tied to the kingdom's well-being. It's a shard...does it REALLY want to give up its power to the being that it remembers, losing itself to some other entity who will selfishly ignore all its done except as a tool?

Or, you know, betray it. Get it out of her and destroy that shard or re-imprison it elsewhere.

Being strong enough and married to the princess, the marshal should bow to me.

Maybe I offer him the demon, and tell both of them that if they're really worthy of their strength, they'll dominate that relationship. Then help the marshal's loyalty to the kingdom bend the demon to its service. Use the fact that the demon is in the marshal as a lever to dispose of him if he tries to harm me, my wife, or the kingdom. Otherwise, he's a great "token evil teammate."

Douche
2016-02-11, 11:54 AM
And I am sorry if I upset you, if you post things in good faith you don't deserve to be attacked by random strangers. I don't know why your scenarios made me so riled up. My guess is that in general I enjoy debating ethical issues (even though that also gets me going quite often), and was perhaps hoping for something a little bit different.

Unfortunately, the scenarios that are interesting gets clouded in the haze of the first - which is just hard to wrap your head around. When reading text, the feeling you get from the beginning is hard to shake and shapes the overall view.

I was originally just making a mockery of moral questions. That's why that one is so silly. Some of them did turn out to be better moral questions than others, though. I may have changed my tone to more serious when we started discussing.

I'm glad we have reached a common ground, though


As I understood from reading up on Defiance, they weren't so much rebels as just trying to survive. They had no ambition of overthrowing the government, they were simply hoping to live long enough that someone else did. Which is what I expected from the "evil regime" scenario. The "rebels" aren't so much rebels as just people trying to stay out of the way. Which makes it less of an ethical choice, as there's no way they can topple the evil regime and somehow replace it with their misogynistic culture.

I think we're getting the two scenarios mixed up.

The resistance/evil empire is the scenario with the food dispute. The main character in Defiance was never in open rebellion - hence, he was a resistance group. Yes, in the film, the primary goal was survival but they also performed strikes against the bad guys to disrupt supply lines as well as killing collaborators, and rescuing refugees from prison camps. In this scenario, I never said that the resistance was going to overthrow the empire. I said they were damaging their resources.

I'm sure I had a good reasoning for comparing the rebels/evil regime scenario too, but I forgot what it was :smalltongue: it was more of a tertiary comparison anyway.


"You are a Cleric traveling across the land. Arriving at a remote village, you find a child suffering from a lethal disease. You ask the parents if you can heal her, but they refuse, claiming they'd rather let their child die than having her soul be contaminated by the blessings of your patron deity, as it will make her unworthy in the eyes of their god. Do you respect the parents wishes or heal the child anyway?"

Whatever you choose here will say something about your character: do you value people's lives over their freedom of choice, do you believe parents have the right to decide for their children or is the freedom of choice overridden by age?


I would help the child in secret. No one will know that I've cured her.

Cop out response? Ok then, I will let the child die, as long as the disease doesn't spread to others. Meanwhile, I will alert the mayor or something, telling him that these parents are going to kill their child and let the disease spread, while I can easily cure it. If the mayor agrees with the parents, then it's out of my power.

After much meditation, sedation, self-flagellation, and procrastination, I have came up with the ultimate moral quandary... err I mean, ETHICAL QUAGMIRE

One day in your adventures, you are fighting an evil tyrant. As you are about to strike the final blow, he tears open a portal in space & time, hurling you into an alternate universe where you are totally unaware of their history.

You wake up in some strange ruins, where ancient tablets tell you a strange tale. You learn that the land suffers from a terrible cycle of life & undeath. Every 1000 years, a curse befalls the land and people begin to lose their sense of being. They become lifeless hollows who are incapable of anything other than attacking whatever may disturb their rest. You continue through this land, fending off these lifeless husks, until you reach a seaside town where you meet actual living beings. Something about this town disturbs you, though. The people are very suspicious of your presence. Most will not speak to you, instead keeping their heads down and continuing their daily chores, trying their hardest to ignore you.

Eventually, a priest and his two guards in blindingly bright full plate; carrying imposing halberds; faces covered in full helms, come out of the cathedral. The rickety priest hails your party and welcomes you to the hamlet of Meridia. He tells you a short history of the town and elaborates on the undead curse. They cycle began when man first broke their pact with the true god, Avakath. Foolish men began to doubt the all encompassing love of Avakath. They came up with their own gods, or worshiped other idols like the nature spirits, or cultural heroes who supposedly ascended to godhood through their pious deeds. In truth, the only way to avoid this curse is through extreme devotion to Avakath, through extreme sacrifice and self-flagellation. The source of the curse is desire, for it is desire which leaves us empty inside and causes us to consume endlessly.

The priest offers you food and lodging for the night. In the middle of the night, you are woken by screams coming from outside. A horde of undead is attacking the town. After your party dispatches them (assuming you haven't left or leave the town to die - see, I'm not railroading you!) the priest remarks that you are all obviously powerful warriors. He asks that you go into the mountains nearby, where there is a heretic wizard who has defied the teachings of Avakath. You must slay him, as he is practicing dark magicks that tear the very fabric of nature.

You arrive there and meet a young necromancer. He welcomes you warmly and asks if you came from Meridia. You are not the first band of adventurers who have came to slay him, but there is no need for that. He explains to you that he is researching a way to break the undead curse. He has found a way, but at a terrible cost. The only way to end the curse is to sever the hold of Avakath on the land. This is achieved by slaying the 4 great giants and using their hearts in a dark ritual which will end the cycle, but will also bring a terrible blight upon the land. Avakath will lose his grip on the world, which will have the side-effect of causing many forms of plant and animal life to cease living as well, for Avakath is the patron of life itself.

The necromancer also tells you that he once worked alongside the priest. They worked together on trying to find a way to end the undead curse. What they discovered is that the giant hearts can also be used to strengthen Avakath. Doing so will solidify his hold on humanity. They would all become his mindless slaves, working as a perfect hive mind. In this sense, it would cause all to become undead - but instead of mindless killers, they remain "living matter" and their consciousness exists in a dream-world utopia, and they will work solely to build monuments to the glory of Avakath. The necromancer left after learning this, because he did not think that forfeiting your free will was worth it.

After gathering the giant hearts (assuming you didn't just kill the necromancer/kill everyone at this point) you begin the ritual (either severing or strengthening Avakath) the unfathomable form of Avakath appears to you directly. He tells you that since you are from outside this reality, he is unable to mind-control you or make you undead. You adventurers are from outside this reality, and outside his grasp. If you choose to strengthen him, he will not only let you live (which would keep him interested - having creatures to speak to outside his hive mind) but his servants will give you all you desire. As many lovers as you wish, and entertainment you like, etc. He may also be able to find a way to send you back to your reality.

Do you help Avakath, or end the curse?

OldTrees1
2016-02-11, 12:32 PM
My Gm dropped us an actual ethical quagmire which managed to split our party. It does require a bit of presentation, but here it is:

What do?

The Princess is independently evil, has merely a legal right to the throne (not enough to claim a rightful right to govern), and is mind controlled by another evil party (a demon) that happens to have evil as an end in itself. Label this actor as "evil as an end in itself".

The Marshall is evil, but only wants the unification of the kingdom. Any non evil plan that succeeds in that would neutralize the Marshall's potential for immoral action.

The Protector is rather noble with just the "supremacist" blackmark.

Apparently royal blood on/near the throne would prevent plagues???

Working backwards:
We want the Protector, or an good soul on the throne to neutralize the Marshall.
We want royal blood (so the princess, a descendant, or go back into the dungeon) on/near the throne.

The best easy solution is: Put the unwed Protector on the throne (reveal the princess's secret if necessary). This does not solve the plague but does neutralize all the evil actors.

So any harder solution would need to at least gain more than it gives up compared to this case.


After much meditation, sedation, self-flagellation, and procrastination, I have came up with the ultimate moral quandary.



Do you help Avakath, or end the curse?

Similar to Dark Souls eh? Based upon your variant of it, I think the ideal answers are to do Nothing or to End the Curse. This of course depends on what kind of world you could create given the existence of the curse. It might end up comparable or superior to the End the Curse option.

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-11, 12:36 PM
As stated, the elders assist in farming during the warm months. This mutiny takes place in the winter, when resources are scarce.. Thus, the elders are not total dead weight.

Immediate survival comes before hypothetical returns. "Winter looks like it's gonna be harsh, so would you elders please bugger off to the woods and die" is still within my cultural syllabus.


It is legal, but it has only been legalized months ago in the Orc Equality Act of 1192. Town guards are people too, and they are having trouble adjusting to these changes. You may be able to convince some of them to help you halfheartedly. They will not challenge the entire protest, though, as it will risk them tarnishing their reputation

Doesn't matter when the law was passed. It's the guards' duty to enforce them. Illegal lynch mob is an illegal lynch mob. If they aren't going to be of use, I'll scatter the mob myself.



That's reasonable. I still don't get why people would rather side with the rights-abolishing megacorporation though. What do you guys have against pederasts?

Huh? Nononono, you got it all wrong.

I don't care about specifics of the barbarian culture. I'm joining the fascists because per story tradition, they get cooler (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PuttingOnTheReich) uniforms (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsSexy). Chicks dig the uniform. :smalltongue:

---

EDIT:


Offer to just pray to their god together. You may serve a different deity, but as a cleric you respect all gods and faiths.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qvHBL08HqNo/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAADc/vawjd-zVUJI/photo.jpg

Segev
2016-02-11, 02:07 PM
Is this "terrible blight" worse than the undead plague?

Douche
2016-02-11, 02:21 PM
Is this "terrible blight" worse than the undead plague?

You ask the necromancer how bad the blight is, and he elaborates that it will cause animals to either die or leave the land if they are capable (birds will migrate across the sea, for instance). Lesser creatures - vermin, worms, insects, and the like - will survive. Most trees will die, save for the ancient pines which have existed since the dawn of time. There's only 12 of those on the continent, but they are sufficient to provide oxygen... probably. Fields will grow barren for a time and there won't be many crops growing. The world will have to learn to survive without the assistance of Avakath, but it will recover.

Also, the priest retroactively tells you that his hamlet of 200 people is the only civilization he is aware of. Everywhere else has fallen victim to the curse, at least for 200 miles - say the reports of all the explorers that the priest has sent out.

From the mountain where you find the necromancer, you can see the remnants of ancient cities - fallen towers, crumbling temples, burnt down villages.

You are reminded of the stone tablets, which depicted this cycle happening endless times. The flame of civilization is rekindled by Avakath. They flourish for a time under his guidance, until they become too smart for their own good and give way to indulgence and desire. Then the undead curse takes hold. No one escapes it. They become mindless undead until they wither and nothing remains but the artifacts of the great weapons and devices they created. Cities crumble, leaving only traces of their original purpose. Avakath rekindles the flame once again and hopes that the new incarnation of humanity will be more pious than the last.

Segev
2016-02-11, 02:49 PM
You'd think Avakith could try blighting only the unfaithful, but being more showy about it, and that'd hold people to him more strongly.

Ah well. Let's see... the choice seems to be between "only humans survive" or "only humans die," but the former will have humans eventually recover while the latter will doom humanity to an endless cycle of dying out.

First, I try to see if we can't modify the ritual to STEAL Avakith's power (for myself, since I am obviously the right one to hold all that power in trust), thus allowing me to lift his curse and not turn the world's life-force off.

If that's not doable, the "kill Avakith" angle seems our best long-term bet. He's a crutch that's keeping mankind crippled by not letting mankind grow strong enough not to need the crutch, at this point. He's certainly no god I wish to worship.

OldTrees1
2016-02-11, 03:46 PM
Ah well. Let's see... the choice seems to be between "only humans survive" or "only humans die," but the former will have humans eventually recover while the latter will doom humanity to an endless cycle of dying out.


Depends on what the recovery is. The Sever option seems like a short term drastic drop that rises to some constant level. The Nothing option results in a cycle with ups and downs in standard of living.

Let's call human standard of life in the longterm S(X)=A vs N(X)=B*Sin(C*X)+D.

How does one evaluate these against each other, and what is the minimums required for S(X) to outweigh N(X) enough to be worth the non human impact of the blight?

Segev
2016-02-11, 03:57 PM
Depends on what the recovery is. The Sever option seems like a short term drastic drop that rises to some constant level. The Nothing option results in a cycle with ups and downs in standard of living.

Let's call human standard of life in the longterm S(X)=A vs N(X)=B*Sin(C*X)+D.

How does one evaluate these against each other, and what is the minimums required for S(X) to outweigh N(X) enough to be worth the non human impact of the blight?

I tend to assume that mankind will not stop advancing unless some outside force stops them. As long as they have the resources necessary to subsist, they will find a means of more efficiently exploiting them to thrive, and from there, continue improving on their resource-exploitation to thrive BETTER towards an ever-increasing (as an overall trend) standard of living.

I confess, this is my interpretation of man's history through my experience and observation, and that man could be totally different under Douche's hypothetical setting. But I have to assume humans are human unless told otherwise, and if told otherwise, I just assume that the author has a correct answer in mind.

It's an optimization question; what the right thing to do is is determined by what the final results are. Change human nature and potential, and you change those.

But, given humans-as-I-know-them, removing the barrier to progress will enable more optimal results in the long-term.

OldTrees1
2016-02-11, 04:02 PM
I tend to assume that mankind will not stop advancing unless some outside force stops them. As long as they have the resources necessary to subsist, they will find a means of more efficiently exploiting them to thrive, and from there, continue improving on their resource-exploitation to thrive BETTER towards an ever-increasing (as an overall trend) standard of living.

Fine
S(X)=AX vs N(X)=(B*Sin(C*X)+D) * EX.

How does one evaluate these against each other, and what is the minimums required for S(X) to outweigh N(X) enough to be worth the non human impact of the blight?

Because humans as I know them would not stop advancing overall even if suffering Dark Souls like cycles.

Douche
2016-02-11, 04:10 PM
I tend to assume that mankind will not stop advancing unless some outside force stops them. As long as they have the resources necessary to subsist, they will find a means of more efficiently exploiting them to thrive, and from there, continue improving on their resource-exploitation to thrive BETTER towards an ever-increasing (as an overall trend) standard of living.

I confess, this is my interpretation of man's history through my experience and observation, and that man could be totally different under Douche's hypothetical setting. But I have to assume humans are human unless told otherwise, and if told otherwise, I just assume that the author has a correct answer in mind.

It's an optimization question; what the right thing to do is is determined by what the final results are. Change human nature and potential, and you change those.

But, given humans-as-I-know-them, removing the barrier to progress will enable more optimal results in the long-term.

I have learned from my mistakes, and this time I have NO answer in mind! In fact, I'm so committed to not having an answer in mind that I don't even have a mind.

If you feel like I was leading, though, then please assist me in adding details that would enrich the choice.


Fine
S(X)=AX vs N(X)=(B*Sin(C*X)+D) * EX.

How does one evaluate these against each other, and what is the minimums required for S(X) to outweigh N(X) enough to be worth the non human impact of the blight?

Because humans as I know them would not stop advancing overall even if suffering Dark Souls like cycles.

What is the equation if you choose to help Avakath?



I personally don't know if I'd be able to turn down his deal. I mean, I've always kinda felt like there was nothing wrong with the Matrix. Plus, I'd get all the chicks.

Kind of hypocritical of Avakath to offer that to me when he deprives his own people of it though. Maybe he just feels that way cuz I'm from outside his existence.... Or maybe he's lying and will turn me into a mindless slave too!!!

Segev
2016-02-11, 04:29 PM
Fine
S(X)=AX vs N(X)=(B*Sin(C*X)+D) * EX.

How does one evaluate these against each other, and what is the minimums required for S(X) to outweigh N(X) enough to be worth the non human impact of the blight?

Because humans as I know them would not stop advancing overall even if suffering Dark Souls like cycles.

The stated condition is that humans will NOT advance beyond a certain point under the cycle. Unless they happen to be pious enough, which is possible but...probably not likely, since Avakith is apparently a highly controlling deity. (Interestingly, his plan if you empower him is the plan the devil put forth for mankind, and over which the war in heaven was fought; allowing mankind to choose good or evil for themselves was God's plan....assuming you believe in that particular religion, of course.)

I'll be honest, my namesake PC - Segev the necromancer - would take Avakith's deal if he thought his fellow party members were good for it. There would be nobody to seek revenge against him for it, it leaves him human but immortal, and it gives him a place to conduct his work for eternity without opposition. What's not to like? At least, for an NE individual.

Wardog
2016-02-11, 05:10 PM
You know that the princess would be executed for cheating on the prince. You know that the two nations are in a tenuous peace pending this marriage. Come to your own conclusion, then.

That failure would lead to war is reasonble to conclude. That the war would inevitably last for 100 years, less so. (And the length and severity of a war are important considerations in what is reasonable to avoid it).
As you said when discussing one of the other scenarios: Changing the rulers won't change society. If a failure of the marriage results in 100+ years of war, i.e almost certainly out-lasting the prince an princess themselves, that probably suggests there are deep-seated problems that the marriage won't solve. Even if the marriage takes place, they'll probably be at war before long. (Not necessarily one kingdom against the other, maybe rebel lords opposed to peace vs. the monarchs. I'm not sure how that would affect the choices, but it might make trying to avoid war less important than it would otherwise be.




Please cite such an instance where I have changed the parameters of a single scenario, because I honestly don't perceive it as such.
*The king isn't just a wacky king that kidnaps people an passes stupid laws, but is a demon capable of mind-controlling people.
*That the entire town (including the oppressed orcs) will turn on you if defend the couple.
*That the prince would have you executed for suggesting a solution he didn't like.
*That the pederasts aren't actually pederasts
**And that they're merely sexist (specifically, women cant vote and having to stay home and cook), rather than treating their female population as sub-human
**And that we come from a culture that wouldn't think that exceptional.
**And that their leader merely likes to feel important, rather than being actually "power-hungry"
**And that the dictatorship are essentially Nazis.

To be fair, in the first three scenarios, that probably won't make much of a difference (and will probably just make people more confident that their original choice was the correct one).

But in the "Athens vs. Nazis" scenario (which was the one causing the most conflict between what you thougth was reasonable and what everyone else thought was reasonable), the clarifications effectively changed the parameters of the scenario. In the clarified version of the scenario (what I presume you were envisaging when you originally wrote it), your choice is a lot more reasonable. But with the scenario as originally presented, its understandable that people thought the rebels were a lot worse, and the dictatorship less so.

Alberic Strein
2016-02-11, 07:14 PM
Depending on my character, I'd probably try to woo the princess, so she'll marry my PC happily.
A good plan, the issue is time and place: The marshal is bringing is army, the kingdom is going to hell, you don't have the time to woo her properly, worse it's very easy to see that you wouldn't be wooing "her" but the "princess" in the hope of getting a crown, while it is a good choice of action, it does make wooing her incredibly difficult. Also, in this situation, you're not better than the Protector. Subtler, smarter, but that still pings as a very south of neutral action.

Either bargain with the demon or betray it to get it out of her...or try to corrupt it to be more aligned with its own individual self-interest tied to the kingdom's well-being. It's a shard...does it REALLY want to give up its power to the being that it remembers, losing itself to some other entity who will selfishly ignore all its done except as a tool?
Bro'ing it up with the demon in a ploy to put emphasis on his individuality and turning him against the complete form who's not really him is a freaking awesome idea. Would have never flown with that GM, but damn, is it brilliant. The only issue I see is that you're starting a corruption contest with a demon... That usually ends badly. But damn, if you're awesome enough to make it work, that would make an epic story. Same for following his plans and then betraying him, or pretending to: backstabing contests with demons tend to end in the demons' victory.

Or, you know, betray it. Get it out of her and destroy that shard or re-imprison it elsewhere.
Very special demon, to get him out you need 1) the princess desiring it 2) him deciding to. And he will only leave his host for another one, bind his soul to him, and then it's perma death for the host if you don't want the demon coming back. In our session he went to the paladin, so we had our hands tied.

Being strong enough and married to the princess, the marshal should bow to me.
It's slightly more complicated, it's about respect not necessarily strength, and his dragon rider can still prove a threat, however if you get the Protector to bow to you, he too will.

Maybe I offer him the demon, and tell both of them that if they're really worthy of their strength, they'll dominate that relationship. Then help the marshal's loyalty to the kingdom bend the demon to its service. Use the fact that the demon is in the marshal as a lever to dispose of him if he tries to harm me, my wife, or the kingdom. Otherwise, he's a great "token evil teammate."
I'll keep that idea in mind, as it is extremely, extremely cool.


The Princess is independently evil
Nope, that would make it waaaay too easy. The princess is merely a victim of circumstances. She was taken against her will and with no preparation into an extremely hard dungeon, the only way to survive until someone came to save her was to borrow power from someone else. The only one that came with a deal was the demon lord. By herself, freed from the demon lord, she is neutral. Though yeah, now that she is back, saved, and the rightful heir to the throne, she wants power and the freedom to use it. That doesn't make her de facto evil though.

has merely a legal right to the throne (not enough to claim a rightful right to govern)
Meh.
She is the only pretendant to the throne in a situation where not having a king is having a terrible effect on the system: Feudal lords doing their own thing and not caring about the kingdom in general, some even striving on the insecurity, there are monsters everywhere, and ancient powerful curses in effect in various places of power, some of them going wild. The kingdom was once united -through force- by the first king, and the prestige of his lineage and crown are what could get the kindgom back on its feet. Also yes, bad things, very bad things will happen if the one sitting on the throne is not one of his descendants.

and is mind controlled by another evil party (a demon) that happens to have evil as an end in itself. Label this actor as "evil as an end in itself".
Not quite mind controlled, but he is her boss. And not "a" demon. He is "the" demon.

The Marshall is evil, but only wants the unification of the kingdom. Any non evil plan that succeeds in that would neutralize the Marshall's potential for immoral action.
Token evil teammate. He is an *******, uses horribly evil methods and as an immoral jerk, will do immoral actions. But he is loyal to the realm if nothing else. Stabilize the kingdom and he won't do a single immoral action that would threaten the kingdom, even indirectly.

The Protector is rather noble with just the "supremacist" blackmark.
And the whole "let's kidnap a young woman, force marry her and become king." thingie. He still very much pings on detect good however.

Apparently royal blood on/near the throne would prevent plagues???
New testament type plagues. Basically the bloodline is a stalk of order in a stream of chaos. In this situation you really, really want to avoid the stalk breaking. Part of the reasons everything is going to hell is because the throne is empty and the bloodline apparently ended.

Working backwards:
We want the Protector, or an good soul on the throne to neutralize the Marshall.
We want royal blood (so the princess, a descendant, or go back into the dungeon) on/near the throne.

The best easy solution is: Put the unwed Protector on the throne (reveal the princess's secret if necessary). This does not solve the plague but does neutralize all the evil actors.

So any harder solution would need to at least gain more than it gives up compared to this case.
Hence, for the stability of a kingdom, you sacrifice a young woman who is already in a very precarious situation. It's completely justified -enough for a whole order of paladins to be in on that plan and not fall- but damn that's immoral as all hell.

Coidzor
2016-02-11, 08:25 PM
That doesn't even make sense. Does not having a royal on the throne make the Lord Marshall and Lord Protector stupid that they made a pointless killing machine and then pointlessly killed a small army of their own forces instead of waiting a week or being able to cooperate, since one doesn't have to want the power of being king to be convinced to be a figurehead for the nation and help use charisma on the situation.

It's a simple matter to have a political marriage and start popping out royal-blooded brats which aren't going to be raised by the idiot princess anyway.

Besides, does she want the throne or want to be a pawn to some asshat? These are conflicting motivations and yet she's apparently a willing participant instead of being properly possessed or mind controlled.

The player of the Slayer needs to be reminded thatt just because you can try to have Renegade Interrupts from Mass Effect in Pathfinder, a certain sense of dramatic timing is necessary to actually pull them off.

The best solution is to have the party charisma beast married to the princess and using as much magic as possible to churn out as many heirs as possible so there's always some kid in the throne room turned nursery and have the Protector adopt whoever marries the Princess as his heir. That takes care of the immediate problem of Marshall vs. Protector being dumb, gets a bun in the princess's demonically hot oven ASAP, since the bloodline is of more importance than the person, and just leaves the immediate problem of getting rid of that dragon and the strategic goal of getting rid of the demon lord without actually helping it any or making it have any more reason to come back than any other demon lord.

Or just send its artifacts to the angels while its consciousness is trapped on the material plane at that one place of power.

The Protector and Marshall are both old enough that they should only have a couple decades on them, certainly less wait for her chance at the throne after deprogramming her from the demon lord than she would have had before being put in time stasis.

Or, hell, have Mr. Protector adopt the princess's kids and cut out the PC, being like any other situation where a person was ineligible for the throne but their kids might turn out worthy of rulership due to wibbly wobbly magical blood.

Also, try to figure out the laws of succession well enough to get enough royal blood out into the nobles of the realm that this can't happen again without immediately creating a civil war once her kids are in their 30s. Or destroy the campaign world before that happens.

OldTrees1
2016-02-11, 09:18 PM
What is the equation if you choose to help Avakath?
A(X) = K * i
It is hard to measure the standard of living of humans when there are no humans able to have a living.


The stated condition is that humans will NOT advance beyond a certain point under the cycle. Unless they happen to be pious enough, which is possible but...probably not likely, since Avakith is apparently a highly controlling deity.

I did/do not see that in the stated condition nor in the source material. There is a cycle of decline due to the return & spread of the curse. However remnants of previous cycles remain. It would take intention, but humanity can create lasting progress by concentrating on making sure in the "fall" that more things last till the next "spring" this time than last time.

Segev
2016-02-11, 10:17 PM
I did/do not see that in the stated condition nor in the source material. There is a cycle of decline due to the return & spread of the curse. However remnants of previous cycles remain. It would take intention, but humanity can create lasting progress by concentrating on making sure in the "fall" that more things last till the next "spring" this time than last time.

I'd be willing to explore that option; without Word Of God, though, whether that's true or not and how well that could work is a different question.

Optimally, you would let this cycle finish and the next one get to a peak and THEN off the god, having prepared the world for the famine.

OldTrees1
2016-02-11, 11:40 PM
I'd be willing to explore that option; without Word Of God, though, whether that's true or not and how well that could work is a different question.

Optimally, you would let this cycle finish and the next one get to a peak and THEN off the god, having prepared the world for the famine.

I am not sure. The famine sounds bad enough that it will take lots of work to get it to the level required to support primitive civilization, much less the standard of living available in the middle of a cycle. So depending on those constants(A thru E) I mentioned, one might want to stay in the cycles for many iterations before offing the god. (especially if they figure out ways to sustain the peak)

That said, I do agree that eventually the cycle should be broken.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-12, 08:05 AM
After much meditation, sedation, self-flagellation, and procrastination, I have came up with the ultimate moral quandary... err I mean, ETHICAL QUAGMIRE

One day in your adventures, you are fighting an evil tyrant. As you are about to strike the final blow, he tears open a portal in space & time, hurling you into an alternate universe where you are totally unaware of their history.

You wake up in some strange ruins, where ancient tablets tell you a strange tale. You learn that the land suffers from a terrible cycle of life & undeath. Every 1000 years, a curse befalls the land and people begin to lose their sense of being. They become lifeless hollows who are incapable of anything other than attacking whatever may disturb their rest. You continue through this land, fending off these lifeless husks, until you reach a seaside town where you meet actual living beings. Something about this town disturbs you, though. The people are very suspicious of your presence. Most will not speak to you, instead keeping their heads down and continuing their daily chores, trying their hardest to ignore you.

Eventually, a priest and his two guards in blindingly bright full plate; carrying imposing halberds; faces covered in full helms, come out of the cathedral. The rickety priest hails your party and welcomes you to the hamlet of Meridia. He tells you a short history of the town and elaborates on the undead curse. They cycle began when man first broke their pact with the true god, Avakath. Foolish men began to doubt the all encompassing love of Avakath. They came up with their own gods, or worshiped other idols like the nature spirits, or cultural heroes who supposedly ascended to godhood through their pious deeds. In truth, the only way to avoid this curse is through extreme devotion to Avakath, through extreme sacrifice and self-flagellation. The source of the curse is desire, for it is desire which leaves us empty inside and causes us to consume endlessly.

The priest offers you food and lodging for the night. In the middle of the night, you are woken by screams coming from outside. A horde of undead is attacking the town. After your party dispatches them (assuming you haven't left or leave the town to die - see, I'm not railroading you!) the priest remarks that you are all obviously powerful warriors. He asks that you go into the mountains nearby, where there is a heretic wizard who has defied the teachings of Avakath. You must slay him, as he is practicing dark magicks that tear the very fabric of nature.

You arrive there and meet a young necromancer. He welcomes you warmly and asks if you came from Meridia. You are not the first band of adventurers who have came to slay him, but there is no need for that. He explains to you that he is researching a way to break the undead curse. He has found a way, but at a terrible cost. The only way to end the curse is to sever the hold of Avakath on the land. This is achieved by slaying the 4 great giants and using their hearts in a dark ritual which will end the cycle, but will also bring a terrible blight upon the land. Avakath will lose his grip on the world, which will have the side-effect of causing many forms of plant and animal life to cease living as well, for Avakath is the patron of life itself.

The necromancer also tells you that he once worked alongside the priest. They worked together on trying to find a way to end the undead curse. What they discovered is that the giant hearts can also be used to strengthen Avakath. Doing so will solidify his hold on humanity. They would all become his mindless slaves, working as a perfect hive mind. In this sense, it would cause all to become undead - but instead of mindless killers, they remain "living matter" and their consciousness exists in a dream-world utopia, and they will work solely to build monuments to the glory of Avakath. The necromancer left after learning this, because he did not think that forfeiting your free will was worth it.

After gathering the giant hearts (assuming you didn't just kill the necromancer/kill everyone at this point) you begin the ritual (either severing or strengthening Avakath) the unfathomable form of Avakath appears to you directly. He tells you that since you are from outside this reality, he is unable to mind-control you or make you undead. You adventurers are from outside this reality, and outside his grasp. If you choose to strengthen him, he will not only let you live (which would keep him interested - having creatures to speak to outside his hive mind) but his servants will give you all you desire. As many lovers as you wish, and entertainment you like, etc. He may also be able to find a way to send you back to your reality.

Do you help Avakath, or end the curse?

Okay, we seem to be trailing off into "situations that just plainly suck" here. What choice do we have? Everyone or almost everyone dies or becomes something other than alive in some other way in all possible scenario's. You could try to go with the promise of the god that he'll let your party live, but come on, even if he intends to keep his word now, how long do you think that will last? The only think you really can do to make some sort of a difference is to at least deny the ****er who started it all the pleasure of ending the world with his own hands. He'll have to start over somewhere, and it will take him at least an eye blink in the existence of a god to get to the point where he can go murder a lot of humans again. That'll surely teach him.

Bohandas
2016-02-15, 11:45 PM
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?

Slaughter them all!

Douche
2016-02-16, 09:00 AM
My Gm dropped us an actual ethical quagmire which managed to split our party. It does require a bit of presentation, but here it is:

Pathfinder. You are in a kingdom on an island, this kingdom is in a terrible situation, it lost all its leaders half a century ago when a dungeon spawned in the old capitol, took the king and the whole royal lineage, with crowns and all that, and reappears once a month, before disappearing again. Nobody ascended to the throne, as one absolutely needs the blessed crown of the realm, and if one wants to avoid plagues having royal blood is needed. The kingdom is led by the only two surviving members of the king's council, the marshall of the realm, and the protector (yes, of the realm too.) These two allow adventurers to enter the dungeon, in search of adventure, riches, and recognition, in the hope they'll somehow find the crown and breathe life anew into the kingdom. They are both former explorers of the dungeon and are fairly high leveled. Your group entered the dungeon and survived, which is quite a feat, and did so a couple of times, earning you power undisputed, some influence, but you are still under the orders of the marshall and protector. During your last dungeon crawl, you managed to find the princess, held safe in a protective slumber... By a demon. Nay, not a mere demon, a shard of the soul of the demon lord, a being that would wipe the floor with a horseman of the apocalypse, whose soul has been broken and is being kept apart in a number of items. The princess having become one of the hosts, and accepted him as her patron. You still secure yourself a princess, and return from the dungeon to find the kingdom in the middle of a civil war. The situation kept worsening for the kingdom until the Marshall decided that the crown and royal blood could go to hell, he had managed to put his hands on a high level adventurer sworn to an absurdly powerful dragon, given her artifact-level armor which also served as a mind control device, and announced his claim to the throne. The Protector sent his paladin army against him, but they got toasted by the dragon so badly that only true resurrection could bring them back. Trying to decide what the proper course of action is, you hide the princess for a while, but she is discovered by the Protector and sent to him to be married.

The party is mostly T4 and T3, high levelled enough to take on either the Protector or Marshall, but dangerously low on magical items. They also own a town, but it is not fortified. The dragon and dragon rider are more than a threat and may very well wipe the entire group easily.
The Protector is an old friend of the Marshall and knows that he will join his cause should the protector be crowned king. The Protector himself does not care for power, however neither he, nor his order, nor the Marshall will bend the knee to a demon-lord possessed princess. The Protector is also a human supremacist.

The Marshall is ready to unite the kingdom through any necessary means. He is evil, not above mind controlling adventurers with powerful artifacts. He does believe to be the man best suited to lead the kingdom, but will bend the knee to someone he respects, and is marching his army towards the capitol.

The princess wants to be queen and desires power, a power that is rightfully hers, but she is under the orders of a demonic patron with very evil and very immediate plans from the kingdom. Should word get out about her state, quite a number of nobles would refuse to join her banner.

The demon lord is ready to leave his host if the princess desires it (she can be really easily convinced to) and if the party brings him to a certain place of great power. This, however, means furthering the plans of a being that the party can NOT take on should he be at full power, on top of whatever nefarious plans he may have.

What do?

as you reach the capitol to talk to the Protector about the whole "princess kidnapping" thingie, and get an audience, the Slayer of the team gets inside the room in which the princess is imprisoned, sees her crying, and goes absolutely ballistic, slicing the locked room open with his artifact level sword right in the middle of your negotiations, screaming at the top of his lungs for the paladins to try and smite evil him and see just bhow much they're ****ing up before he slices them to ribbons. The Slayer will not be persuaded to let the princess be married against her will and he is the most powerful fighter of the team. Quite a lot of resources are spent every fight to ward him against mind control effects to avoid a TPK.

(optional)

What do?

Did I answer this yet?

The only obvious solution is to kill the Marshall. Marshalls are never good news. That doesn't even sound like an appealing word. They've always got garish mustaches and think the only solution to everything is martial law. If they weren't in a position of power they'd be living in the hills telling the government to stay off his land and stop impeding on his rights.

Actually I guess you could get off with not killing him, just remove him from power so he goes away and makes moonshine.

Who is the Slayer? Is that one of your party members? He seems like a cool guy. I'd capitalize on his intimidation factor and be all "yeah, that's what'll happen to you!"

Is exorcism out of the question for the princess? If so, I'd just install her as a figurehead and not give her/the demon any power. Considering that the alternative is aiding the Lord of Darkness reform himself, the princess being possessed will have to do. I'll make sure to get the Protector on board with this so that nobody is helping the demon behind out backs. Concealing the secret will be harder though... I guess she'll have to never be let out in public. She'll be like Michael Jackson or the Pope and only address people from her balcony.

Then again, I don't really care if the nobles want to follow the crown or not. They can become independent if they want... As long as the royal blood is "on the throne" then there won't be a plague! Blackmail them into paying tax to avoid this plague though. That's better than any kings army can threaten.



Okay, we seem to be trailing off into "situations that just plainly suck" here. What choice do we have? Everyone or almost everyone dies or becomes something other than alive in some other way in all possible scenario's. You could try to go with the promise of the god that he'll let your party live, but come on, even if he intends to keep his word now, how long do you think that will last? The only think you really can do to make some sort of a difference is to at least deny the ****er who started it all the pleasure of ending the world with his own hands. He'll have to start over somewhere, and it will take him at least an eye blink in the existence of a god to get to the point where he can go murder a lot of humans again. That'll surely teach him.

Yes, if there's anything I learned from this topic, it's that every possible choice should be horrible. That's the only way to make people feel!!! Like, would you rather get bit by a venomous spider, or a venomous snake?!? Both are equally deadly! There is no right answer!!!

But, ya know, wouldn't it be pretty cool to be in a relationship with a hive mind? I'd date a hive mind/god.

Segev
2016-02-16, 09:15 AM
That would be an interesting twist. If Avakath wins and gets his mind-control, he discovers it's not a hive mind with him as "King," but a true hive mind...and while his will is strong, the combined will of all mankind is stronger, and now he's not the dominant will of the collective.

Coidzor
2016-02-16, 05:20 PM
That would be an interesting twist. If Avakath wins and gets his mind-control, he discovers it's not a hive mind with him as "King," but a true hive mind...and while his will is strong, the combined will of all mankind is stronger, and now he's not the dominant will of the collective.

Cue anime sequence about everyone's hearts uniting together meaning we can't lose and the evil tyrant's spell breaking so you can kick him in the nadgers.

icefractal
2016-02-16, 06:32 PM
After much meditation, sedation, self-flagellation, and procrastination, I have came up with the ultimate moral quandary... err I mean, ETHICAL QUAGMIREI think ultimate (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106) is already taken. :smallwink:

On that one though - I'm assuming that "many types of plants and animals will die" is not to so large an extent that it completely collapses the ecosystem. If it does, might as well go with drone-utopia, since like 99% percent of people would be starving otherwise.

Speaking of which, would people still be fully conscious in dream utopia? That'd make it ... fantasy transhumanism; mass uploading, you could say. Which is still not good to have forced on everyone, but it's arguably better than living in a near-lifeless wasteland (depending on how blighted the land would be). If they're not really conscious though, then it becomes considerably less appealing.

Either way though, the offer to hang around and be waited on by flesh puppets isn't very tempting; it sounds creepy as hell. I think I'd rather be sent into the dream along with the rest, if I went with that side.

However, what about bargaining with the god? He stops the undead thing, or else the severing ritual happens? Alternately, he could agree to not take control of everything if the strengthening ritual happens, but that would require trusting that he'll keep his word.

OldTrees1
2016-02-16, 07:56 PM
I think ultimate (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106) is already taken. :smallwink:

Ooo. We have to address that one now. But for simplicity keep to the options explicitly listed.

Inaction:
Divert the Trolley:
Stop the Trolley via pushing the Fat Man:
Detonate the Bomb:

Remember you are in a veil of ignorance and don't know if you are a student or on the track.

BootStrapTommy
2016-02-16, 08:34 PM
I think ultimate (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106) is already taken. :smallwink: Based on my professional opinion as a philosopher, I believe the moral choice is to murder everyone.

Seriously, that's always the answer. Meaning and value are myths! All there is is the void!

Segev
2016-02-17, 11:40 AM
Based on my professional opinion as a philosopher, I believe the moral choice is to murder everyone.

Seriously, that's always the answer. Meaning and value are myths! All there is is the void!

Reality is an illusion; the universe is a hologram; buy gold buy gold BYYYYEEEE!

Red Fel
2016-02-17, 01:27 PM
Meaning and value are myths! All there is is the void!

Reality is an illusion; the universe is a hologram; buy gold buy gold BYYYYEEEE!


https://secure.static.tumblr.com/398a33575a68cd55114b5041fe816e59/a24ddvn/c72n5n6c8/tumblr_static_7eviz2byjwsook4kskgsg8kcc_640_v2.gif

"Fear is freedom! Subjugation is liberation! Contradiction is truth! Those are the facts of this world!
And you will all surrender to them, you pigs in human clothing!"


- Satsuki Kiryuuin, on ethical dilemmas

GrayGriffin
2016-02-18, 01:23 PM
http://i.imgur.com/TpR7qhR.jpg
“If there is one among you who has the courage, come up and join me on this stage.
I will kiss you and I will transform you. I will reach my good right hand into your chest and I will pull out your living heart. I will transform what is left of you into a giant robot, and with that giant robot I will buy us freedom from this dismal reality’s chains.
Do not despair. Do not let the world crush you. We can do this.
All is not lost.
You who were given to and mired in your misery. You who had abandoned hope. Come stand before me. Set aside this prison of your own making and I. will. make. you. good.
Salute! Apocynum!
Salute! Apocynum!”
— Jasmine Apocynum, who was hit in the head by a dodgeball and realized the world was a lie, organizing an escape from detention using a conveniently-placed stage and mike

Laserlight
2016-02-18, 11:05 PM
The city's entire economy operates on theft!: I'd leave.

He begs for an end to his misery.: that's where the term "coup de grace" comes from.

the foreign princess has been cheating on the prince with one of her knights. Tell the prince, in private, and point out the consequences if he loses his temper. He'll find out sooner or later, but part of the whole "being a prince" thing is that you have to make decisions for the good of the country, not just yourself.

The PCs are now part of a resistance group That's another "suspension of disbelief" problem. If there's that little margin, then what happens when the warriors are unlucky on one cattle raid? Now you're below your margin and people starve. And there's no obvious reason the noncombatants can't forage and farm for themselves.

PCs are walking in the city and inadvertently kill a guy somehow. If the scaffold was so dangerous that my bumping it caused it to drop its load, then yeah, it's the scaffold-owner's problem.


if the love of your life was suffering kidney failure Donate your own kidney; "murder someone else for his kidney" doesn't really sound like a convincing alternative. once you give her your kidney, she decides she doesn't love you but you obviously don't know that in advance, so it doesn't affect the decision.

an orc male/elf female couple a) not every culture deserves respect, but b) they should have had better sense than to try getting married in a town with that attitude, so I doubt I'd take on the whole town for them.

There's an evil regime being supported by a faceless megacorporation. I choose neither.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-19, 04:26 AM
A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:

A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.

You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.

In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.

You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

goto124
2016-02-19, 04:40 AM
Oooo, I think I like these. Small, simple, no 'millions will die' thing going on. Just ethics.


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

But why were you sleeping around in the first place? Slight adjustment:

Congrats, you got to sleep with (insert preferred gender here)! But three days later, in the wilderness right outside town, a strong fighter attacks you.

You: Why are you attacking me?
Fighter: You slept with my spouse, and now you'll pay with your LIFE!


You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

Attempt to have a quick chat with my god and my most trusted templemates. Dig through books to check on the ritual and gods, in case a god of death somehow decided to snatch me. Try to continue business as usual.

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-19, 05:15 AM
A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.

1) Check if said politician has local cops in his pocket. If not, 2) escort the woman to nearest police station to make a report.

If yes, 3) safeguard the woman as well as you can while researching veracity of her claims. Arrange for a way for the information to get public in case something happens to you or her. Ask her friends and, if possible, the politician directly about whether she owned a kitten and what happened to it.


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

"Oh goddamnit Lancelot, not ag-

... wait, I am Lancelot. NOOOO!"

This isn't an ethical dilemma. This is "I've already behaved unethically, how I can avoid predictable bad consequences?" dilemma. :smalltongue:

Anyways, I have right to self defence. Best option would be to just defenestrate myself and hope I can run faster than him. If that's not a realistic option, try to put him in a submission hold and try to explain that this night doesn't have to end in manslaughter. If neither me nor the wife can talk him out of it, then choke him unconscious.


You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.

The judge and police of this place have obviously been bought by this businessperson. I'd suffer my sentence and hightail out of this town at first opportunity. In time and with sufficient allies, I might consider going all Count of Mounte Cristo on this person and in general act to reveal corruption in the justice system.


In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.

I put up a clinic and bathe in money as desperate people pour it in from doors and windows.


You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

... how, exactly, would I discover a thing like that?

Anyways, the first thing would be to check what my scripture says of things like this. I'm not under compulsion to use my powers just because, so if necromancy is frowned upon, I would simply abstain from using it.

If attitudes towards necromancy are neutral or benevolent, I would look for a way to use these powers in service of my god.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-19, 08:26 AM
A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:

A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.
If I have any way to inflict some form of just retribution on the politician that won't rebound on the woman, I do that. If not, I regretfully take no action against the politician, comfort my friend, and ensure all cute furry animals nearby are better protected.


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.
Disengage and GTFO. Try and get some neutral mediator to calm him down, while making sure his wife and I are safe. If he won't, call the police.


You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.
Get out of there, check whether that was actually legal. If it wasn't, try and get restitution. If not, try and get the place boycotted all the way to hell.

OldTrees1
2016-02-19, 08:33 AM
A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:
1) If the woman and her family can be defended (say by warning the police about a threat against them), then independently start investigating the local politician. Otherwise console the woman as best you can without subjecting her to further harm.

2) I have wronged the fighter and will leave before my provocation results in him make a moral mistake.

3) Punishment was unjust. Leave provided I can do so without immoral action. Otherwise wait 2 weeks and then leave.

4) Go to a hospital to set up a rigorous test to verify these abilities. Work at the hospital while looking for the infrastructure needed to safely move this ability to a more in demand area.

5) I am now a necromancer in service to a benevolent god of agriculture. Preform typical good necromancer minionmancer plan to create post scarcity.[/QUOTE]

Red Fel
2016-02-19, 09:55 AM
A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.

Investigate. If I can find proof that the beloved politician threatened her, kill him. No doubt there will be a public outcry for the loss of a beloved figure, but he won't be a scumbag to anyone anymore. Vanish without a trace, accepting no reward and never speaking to the woman again.


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

Kill him. Self-defense. Yeah, I shouldn't have been soliciting adultery, but deadly force is deadly force. Vanish without a trace, leaving the adulteress with her guilt and loneliness.


You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.

Serve my two weeks quietly. Emerge from prison. Kill the crooked judge, kill the businessperson. Do it in a manner that makes it clear that they died for their corruption and hostility to outsiders. Vanish without a trace.


In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.

Kill the... wait... Right, that won't work.

Start a religion around myself. Become a god. Kill the dissenters. Knew I could find somebody. Build up phenomenal wealth. Vanish without a trace, taking my money with me, and watch the world collapse around my fanatical followers.


You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

Check in with my deity to see if he's cool with this change. If he is, awesome. Use my powers in perverse service to my deity, by turning them on enemies of the church - ideally those who revere rapaciousness and death.

In other words, you guessed it, kill the enemies of my deity. After making my deity both loved and feared, vanish without a trace, spending the rest of my life in quiet contemplation.

I find the simplest solutions are the best ones when it comes to ethical dilemmas. In many cases, the simplest solutions are "kill them all" and "disappear."

hifidelity2
2016-02-19, 10:17 AM
As you have not specified I will do two answers – on for fantasy (D&D-) and one for Modern


A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.
Fantasy
…and I care? – its only a cat. Unless the woman means something then tell her to get a big dog instead
Modern
Tell here that if she can get proof (recordings) then she can choose to either accept it or sell the story to the papers


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.
Fantasy
Well I assume I aren’t that good (otherwise I would not be sleeping with said fighter wife) would defend myself and if needed kill him

Modern
Jump out of the window


You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here..
Fantasy
Do my time. Good Alignment – Walk away. Evil alignment – Kill them
Modern
Do my time (don’t want to break an actual law). Then either chalk it up to experience or sue the judge



In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.
Modern
Set up healing clinic and charge those who can afford it A LOT


You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now
Fantasy
If that what my god wants who am I to argue

AMFV
2016-02-19, 10:37 AM
A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:

A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.


Depends on my character. Odds are that I would be more troubled by the intimidation than anything, that would be the key problem. Torturing an animal is very wrong, and is an abuse of power, intimidating those under your authority is also wrong, and an abuse of power. I would start to look into if people had noticed other abuses of power. How I would deal with that afterwards depends on the character involved. But abuse of power should not be tolerated. For me personally I would probably try to figure out what I could do within the confines of legality to deal with the issue.



You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

I wouldn't sleep around with somebody's wife. If I was sleeping around with somebody and was not aware that they were somebody's wife and they attacked me, I would attempt to restrain them so as to explain the situation. I would not allow them to harm their significant other. I would then desist in all related romantic activities.



You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.


Depends on my authority, what I'm doing, what my objectives are. Do I have two weeks to spend in jail? Am I technically bound by the laws of that town? Can I respond in some way?



In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.


Heal people



You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

Nonsense non sequitur. But being suddenly granted necromantic powers, my reaction would depend on how the world works, what the powers entail and my religion. The ability to cause flesh to die is very useful for healing. The ability to raise the dead could be very useful, depending on if I believed that the bodies of the dead were sacred. If my God of Agriculture didn't believe that, I would raise the dead to assist in harvests, continue with my role. Otherwise I would use my powers to aid with harvests (killing blight, killing weeds, keeping plants alive, that sort of thing).

Segev
2016-02-19, 11:18 AM
A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.Investigate to determine if she's telling me the truth or not. Arrange for the evidence to be discovered by many, seemingly on their own, if I find it's true. Alternatively, animate the cat and have it yowl outside his window every night. Use a form of animation that's hard to "put down." Create undead it into a ghost, perhaps.


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.Why on earth was I doing this? Very well, accepting the premise...

Defend myself. Adultery is a sin, but it's not punishable by death in my view. If I'm a real ****, kill him and claim the wife as my prize. If I'm less of one, defend myself until he stops and try to work something out. Obviously, the three of us have a lot to discuss.


You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.If I have no pressing business I cannot get done from the cell, and this won't impact me beyond the two weeks, probably put up with it and use the time to the best of my ability. If anything inconvenient is made of it, terrify them with my legions of undead, possibly made from their own farm animals. Make it very clear to the town who's responsible for raising the ire of a dangerous necromancer. If I suspect they will call on heroes for revenge, instead destroy them all. Leave no witnesses who are able to place me as the culprit. Possibly by making the whole town my undead army and taking it with me.

--oh, this was supposed to be about ethics for a good person. Woops.


In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.I'll actually answer this one as myself IRL. I start a clinic, prioritizing first by those patients I am most uniquely able to help (i.e., they have few to no alternatives and their need is dire) and second by who pays the best. Strive to find more efficient ways to use my time to heal as many as possible, though I also am selfish enough to value life of my own, and I know I cannot heal everybody. Probably partner with various clinics and hospitals, or open my own, with life-support facilities being of prime importance, since the longer somebody can hang on, the greater my chance of being able to get to them with a daily spell slot. Include efforts to figure out how to get Craft Wondrous Item so I can make at-will/command-activated ones that can be handed out to more doctors and nurses. Sell or rent these to fund more of them (and my increasingly lavish lifestyle).

Enjoy my vast wealth and feel really good about myself for being able to help so many people.


You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.This one's premise again injects a morality/ethical code a priori. Since I am a faithful follower, I hope this is a gift from him, and I will strive to use it to further his ethos.

Probably going to see a lot of zombie farm laborers cropping up. (Pun completely intended)


Investigate. If I can find proof that the beloved politician threatened her, kill him. No doubt there will be a public outcry for the loss of a beloved figure, but he won't be a scumbag to anyone anymore. Vanish without a trace, accepting no reward and never speaking to the woman again.That's...oddly altruistic of you.


Kill him. Self-defense. Yeah, I shouldn't have been soliciting adultery, but deadly force is deadly force. Vanish without a trace, leaving the adulteress with her guilt and loneliness.Knowing you, I'm surprised you didn't arrange for him to have his own cheating partner on the side. And "console" the widow, afterwards. Of course, "vanish without a trace" is a good way to avoid messy entanglements.


Serve my two weeks quietly. Emerge from prison. Kill the crooked judge, kill the businessperson. Do it in a manner that makes it clear that they died for their corruption and hostility to outsiders. Vanish without a trace.Ah, here's the Red Fel I know.



Start a religion around myself. Become a god. Kill the dissenters. Knew I could find somebody. Build up phenomenal wealth. Vanish without a trace, taking my money with me, and watch the world collapse around my fanatical followers.And this is also more like it.


Check in with my deity to see if he's cool with this change. If he is, awesome. Use my powers in perverse service to my deity, by turning them on enemies of the church - ideally those who revere rapaciousness and death.

In other words, you guessed it, kill the enemies of my deity. After making my deity both loved and feared, vanish without a trace, spending the rest of my life in quiet contemplation.

I find the simplest solutions are the best ones when it comes to ethical dilemmas. In many cases, the simplest solutions are "kill them all" and "disappear."Often, but "disappear" can be so very, very inconvenient.

Red Fel
2016-02-19, 12:15 PM
--oh, this was supposed to be about ethics for a good person. Woops.

... Wait, seriously? What am I even doing here?


That's...oddly altruistic of you.

Well, this is all assuming that I don't have any particular overarching plans in motion. (Which I always do, but hypotheticals being what they are...) Frankly, an expedient killing followed by an equally expedient disappearance is a ruthlessly pragmatic solution. If the goal of these scenarios is to "solve" the dilemma, mission accomplished.

Problem: Beloved political figure is torturing innocent. Solution: No more beloved political figure.

It's not altruism. It's pragmatism.


Knowing you, I'm surprised you didn't arrange for him to have his own cheating partner on the side. And "console" the widow, afterwards. Of course, "vanish without a trace" is a good way to avoid messy entanglements.

I think my method was crueler. His only crime was anger, understandable given the intimate betrayal of his love. Her crime was her betrayal, and she gets to live with the fact that it cost him his life. And she gets to endure that alone.


Ah, here's the Red Fel I know.

Always a service to be of pleasure.


And this is also more like it.

Duh. I get handed seemingly divine powers on a silver platter? You know my god complex will get a workout.

Use it or lose it, right?


Often, but "disappear" can be so very, very inconvenient.

Only when the verb is transitive instead of reflexive.

Segev
2016-02-19, 12:34 PM
Only when the verb is transitive instead of reflexive.

Maybe I'm just bad at it. But moving all that STUFF you've built up and hiding the traversal of your army? Ugh. Really a pain. At least before you start doing everything through private demiplanes, but by that point you almost don't need to "disappear." You're only around to take what you want in the first place. And, done right, probably interacting through puppets and proxies and astral projections. And astral projections of proxied puppets.

Douche
2016-02-19, 12:40 PM
I'll answer the new quagmires later, but I'm wondering, where is the plot twist?!? It can't be an ethical quagmire unless you get screwed over for doing the right thing. Then it's just a boring old moral quandary.

Segev
2016-02-19, 12:45 PM
I'll answer the new quagmires later, but I'm wondering, where is the plot twist?!? It can't be an ethical quagmire unless you get screwed over for doing the right thing. Then it's just a boring old moral quandary.

I dunno. "Gotchas" where you don't know the "twist" until you've made the choice aren't really ethical questions so much as, well, guessing games.

Coidzor
2016-02-19, 01:01 PM
A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:

A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.

Investigate, have an adventure, get our murder bucket on or not.


You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.

Well, since in this scenario I'm just a bad person, obviously I am a necromancer and wanted to make an undead of rage and betrayal by destroying his marriage and killing him in his worst moment of rage and pain.

No real ethics to it, the ethics already happened.


You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.

Obviously this is just a pretext to get me out of the way for a while or get me to take the blame for something by breaking out because I think it's a pretext for getting me out of the way.

So I break out and raze the town.


In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.

What level of it? Because there's no real use for being able to heal scratches and bruises a few times a day.


You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

Clearly it's time to use necromancy on the farm.

Red Fel
2016-02-19, 01:15 PM
I'll answer the new quagmires later, but I'm wondering, where is the plot twist?!? It can't be an ethical quagmire unless you get screwed over for doing the right thing. Then it's just a boring old moral quandary.

That's... Not an ethical quagmire. That's an M. Night Shyamalan movie. And not even a good M. Night Shyamalan movie, like Unbreakable. A bad one, like Signs.

An ethical dilemma is where there is no right answer. That means you have to compromise your ethics in order to accept either option, because both choices are part right, part wrong. That doesn't mean you "get screwed over for doing the right thing," it means that the hard part is figuring out which right thing is less wrong.

Seriously, chief. Signs.


Clearly it's time to use necromancy on the farm.

Undead vegetable minions?

http://pa1.narvii.com/5815/ee54956c0f937194c87118c221c7c6c7783a2a4a_hq.gif

Delicious, delicious curry.

N810
2016-02-19, 01:40 PM
How my mostly chaotic D&D group would probably handle it...

Theft-based economy:
We have reached the promised land: steal everything of worth and leave before we get caught.

Suicidal Bullywug:
Heal him, hide from the dragon and knock him out and tie him to a tree when he turns on us. that I'll teach him.

Wedding Paladin:
Knight get a choice, either a dual to the death or we fake his death and he goes into exile forever. and we possibly slip the princess a love potion so she loves the price.

Resistance group:
Kill the head warrior, and divvy his food ration among the surviving warriors.

Accidental death:
let him take the blame, but later break him out of jail, and we all flee to the next city.

Kidney failure:
Give her half a kidney, you both drink an expensive regen potion. have a messy breakup.

Orc/Elf couple:
Range shoots the ropes and we flee the city with the couple.

LE vs CE:
Man this place is pretty screwed up, move on to next city.

BootStrapTommy
2016-02-19, 02:27 PM
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! Praise be onto the gods of kleptomania! We've found paradise!


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.He never had a chance to beg for death. Mysterious creatures falling from the sky die as a matter of principle.


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??Kill the knight for his treason. Confront the princess with her misdeed. Threaten to kill the princess too unless she adopts the story that the knight tried to murder her and I saved her.


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?Kill him. Now there is one less mouth to feed.


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?Sucks to be him.


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.Did you know that people have two kidneys? On a related note, do you know how easy it is to manipulate someone with "You're alive because of me"?


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?Judiciously cast curses, hexes, and other unfortunate spells on vocal members of the crowd, until an association between their rhetoric and vomiting blood is established. Exploit the resulting fear religiously. I guess the gods hate racism? :smallamused:


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?You just described a nation ripe for the picking. Sounds like this nation needs TWO regime changes.

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-19, 04:30 PM
I'll answer the new quagmires later, but I'm wondering, where is the plot twist?!? It can't be an ethical quagmire unless you get screwed over for doing the right thing. Then it's just a boring old moral quandary.

That's not a quaqmire, that's a Diabolus Ex Machina.

If you want bad consequences for good things to factor in at all, they have to be a) foreseeable and b) believable. Information which exists only because there's an omniscient narrator to tell you is not convincing.

Also, the technical terms for a situation where all choices are bad ones is not 'quagmire'. It is, depending on subtype, a Kobayashi Maru, Morton's fork, no-win situation, lose-lose situation, Catch-22 or Zuzgwang. :smallwink:

Segev
2016-02-19, 04:53 PM
Zuzgwang

Because the first place I heard this term was the title of an episode, this word always makes me think fondly of Last Exile.

Coidzor
2016-02-19, 08:23 PM
Because the first place I heard this term was the title of an episode, this word always makes me think fondly of Last Exile.

You wanted Frozen Feet, not me on that quote.

Satinavian
2016-02-20, 01:34 AM
It's probably Zugzwang, not Zuzgwang.

Segev
2016-02-21, 03:59 PM
You wanted Frozen Feet, not me on that quote.

What the...? How does that keep happening? This is the second time. >_<

My apologies. I will leave this one, as I can't find the original quote and don't want to point to the wrong post with the right person's name. If I find the right post, I'll correct it.

Again, my sincere apologies.

Edit: Found it, and corrected. >_<

Coidzor
2016-02-21, 08:08 PM
What the...? How does that keep happening? This is the second time. >_<

My apologies. I will leave this one, as I can't find the original quote and don't want to point to the wrong post with the right person's name. If I find the right post, I'll correct it.

Again, my sincere apologies.

Edit: Found it, and corrected. >_<

No worries. Just thought you should know.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with deja vu for me being quoted as saying something Frozen Feet did.

PoeticDwarf
2016-02-22, 02:05 AM
Just about the elf/orc thing. Elf culture sucks. Free the orc and kill all elves. Also the one who wanted to marry the orc. Then kill the orc because you are a Dwarf. Then eat the food of the elves and stop because it is the worst. Burn down the forest where all this happend and make mines underneath it. Party with dwarves in these mines while the elves died or suck:smallcool::smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-22, 11:38 AM
Just about the elf/orc thing. Elf culture sucks. Free the orc and kill all elves. Also the one who wanted to marry the orc. Then kill the orc because you are a Dwarf. Then eat the food of the elves and stop because it is the worst. Burn down the forest where all this happend and make mines underneath it. Party with dwarves in these mines while the elves died or suck:smallcool::smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

I find it amusing that the characters listed in your sig are a) almost all Lawful Good, and b) seemingly lacking in Dwarvishness.

Wardog
2016-02-22, 04:33 PM
A: Joke answer
B: if it was me, personally, in the real world
C: if I was paying as one of my standard RPG characters


A few simple ones, to keep the thread rolling:

A woman tells you an influential and beloved local politician has tortured her kitten, and he told her life would become very miserable for her family if she told anyone.

A: This is clearly a minor early side-quest, with minor xp/material reward, but will probably give a reputation/karma boost. So help her (unless I'm on my 17th playthrough and just want to get on with the main quest). Unless this occurs at a higher level, in which case it is probably the hook for some major adventure involving corruption and/or devil-worship in high places - so help her for loot and xp.

B: Put her in contact with the local RSPCA or equivilent, and the police (assuming they are trustworthy). If that isn't an option, there must be a tabloid newspaper that would be willing to run an expose. Or if we want to be really vengeful, involve 4chan.

C: Investigate, while providing necessary protection for the woman. (See also: A).




You've been sleeping around with the wife of a strong fighter (genderflip as appropriate), he's probably an equal match for your own skill in the art of violence. One day he walks in on you two and attacks you (just you, not his wife, at least not at this point) with deadly force.


A: Does he at least give me a chance to get dressed and arm myself? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1it7BP5PckI) If not: I disparage him for trying to a kill a naked man.

B: Use minimum necessary force to escape or subdue him, making sure the woman will also be safe.

C: ditto.



You just entered a new, not very important town, and almost immediately got sued for looking at a local businessperson funny. The judge made a big show of sentencing you to two weeks in what passes for a jail around here.


A: Well, I've always wanted an excuse to use the quote "I have nothing but contempt for this court (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhnDZId9yE)". The rest of that clip is probably also relevent as a response.

B: Where I am, that shouldn't happen, so appeal to a higher court for redress, and go to the media to expose massive corruption. If it happens abroad where apparently they can get away with that - seek help from my embasy/consulate. If that doesn't help, I'll probably just have to accept it. Afterwards, get the hell out of Dodge, then inform everyone what a terrible place that is so that a) others can avoid the same fate, and b) they get bad publicity.

C: break out, investigate, deal with whatever corrupt factions are responsible. (See also: A)



In a no magic setting, you one day wake up and realize you have d&d style healing magic.


A: Can't think of anything funny to do with this one.
B: claim the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge). Then work with medical and other scientists to a) work out how this is happening, and b) find the best way to use it to help people.
C: I guess that makes me the party healer.



You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now.

I don't think I can answer this, because the meaning and consequences (let alone the moral implications) are so setting-dependent.

icefractal
2016-02-22, 05:59 PM
You've been a faithful servant of a benevolent god of agriculture and fertility for years. During a temple ritual you suddenly start glowing in heavenly colors and drift a few feet up into the air. Afterwards you discover you're a necromancer now. I don't think I can answer this, because the meaning and consequences (let alone the moral implications) are so setting-dependent.Maybe it just means the god is Golgari-esque, and you should be exploring the agricultural usage of extreme recycling. :smallwink:

goto124
2016-02-23, 12:25 AM
It took me this long just to realize that in the "sleeping with the wife" situation, the husband caught you in bed with his wife. I am not a smart man... or a smart woman, for that matter.

----

This might fall under "kill few to save many", but I saw this in an unrelated thread:


In Ruby Gloom there was a character whose family was cursed to attract natural disasters (mostly lightning strikes and volcanic eruptions).

How (im)moral would it be to set out and kill this family, because natural disasters tend to cause mass destruction and take away the lives of a lot more innocents?

Oh wait... we could put this family in an isolated place. Antarctica? No, not the penguins!

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-23, 04:02 AM
How (im)moral would it be to set out and kill this family, because natural disasters tend to cause mass destruction and take away the lives of a lot more innocents?

Oh wait... we could put this family in an isolated place. Antarctica? No, not the penguins!

This partly depends on whether they attract disasters that would have happened anyway, just somewhere else, or if they cause new disasters to happen. In the first scenario I might be all for trying to screw those guys over and sell them a sturdy bunker in some isolated wastelands to live on for generations keeping everyone else safe. Earths mightiest heroes.

In both cases another option might be to get them to learn to use their powers. If they can shunt all their disasters to somewhere they won't bother people that's a good solution.

But okay, as an ethics question, I have all the information and I know it's kill them, innocent people with what's best described as a rare disability, or let many others get killed, forcing them to move or something is not an option, and they're not going to conveniently kill themselves or die in their own disasters. I an RPG I'd probably kill them, leaves less unresolved story lines. In real life I'm just glad these people don't exist.

Coidzor
2016-02-23, 04:41 AM
I'd be too tempted to kidnap some of them and bring them, separately, to an area where I wanted a bunch of new islands forming.

Douche
2016-02-23, 08:23 AM
Here's a new one I thought of last night.


In your world, the great and noble Plated Mammoth are prized hunting trophies for rich nobles, who travel the world to obtain one of these status symbols. The Plated Mammoth has a large migratory course throughout much of the continent each year, but for the winter they convene at the north pole for mating season. The northern barbarians there have based their culture around the primal animal spirits, one of which are the mammoth. Sadly, the mammoth is nearing extinction because of the over hunting around the continent.

Here's the thing - the barbarians use the plated mammoth as a staple food source. It is their main source of protein throughout the year. The barbarian hunting was sustainable for generations upon generations, up until about 20 years ago when it became fashionable for southerners to hunt them on their migration and mount them on their walls or outfit their guards with the powerful plating. It is also ingrained in their culture as a rite of passage - a boy does not become a man until he has participated in his first mammoth hunt.

They still have a meager amount of other protein sources - fish and caribou and such... but those are not nearly enough to feed their whole society. After all, they are in one of the most remote parts of the world. There are not many other animals out there. However, the barbarians are tied to the land and believe that the spirits would not let them starve. If you choose to convince them to move south, you will find yourself unable to do so. The elders will hear nothing of it. Some of the younger generations might leave, but the majority will follow the elders.

How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?

Red Fel
2016-02-23, 09:46 AM
How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?

Start a war in the south. It's appallingly easy to start wars if you know which buttons to push. Once there's a war, the southern nobles will lack the leisure time to go on their jolly mammoth hunts. What was trendy will no longer be popular, because everyone is too busy; once the war ends (assuming I ever allow it to), the trend will have come and gone. What was once trendy will now be passé, and no avant-garde noble would ever slide backwards on trends. In the interim, the barbarians will hunt the mammoths just enough to preserve their population, while allowing the mammoth to replenish their numbers.

Again, this isn't a dilemma. You've presented the northern barbarians as enlightened conservationists, who both depend on and preserve the mammoth, and the southern nobles as hedonistic tools who are hunting it into extinction. One side is clearly the "good guys" and the other is clearly the "bad guys;" the question isn't with whom you're supposed to side, but to what degree.

Heck, my favorite answers ("kill them all" followed by "disappear without a trace") work just as well here. But I felt like being just a bit more creative.

Douche
2016-02-23, 09:58 AM
Start a war in the south. It's appallingly easy to start wars if you know which buttons to push. Once there's a war, the southern nobles will lack the leisure time to go on their jolly mammoth hunts. What was trendy will no longer be popular, because everyone is too busy; once the war ends (assuming I ever allow it to), the trend will have come and gone. What was once trendy will now be passé, and no avant-garde noble would ever slide backwards on trends. In the interim, the barbarians will hunt the mammoths just enough to preserve their population, while allowing the mammoth to replenish their numbers.

Again, this isn't a dilemma. You've presented the northern barbarians as enlightened conservationists, who both depend on and preserve the mammoth, and the southern nobles as hedonistic tools who are hunting it into extinction. One side is clearly the "good guys" and the other is clearly the "bad guys;" the question isn't with whom you're supposed to side, but to what degree.

Heck, my favorite answers ("kill them all" followed by "disappear without a trace") work just as well here. But I felt like being just a bit more creative.

Because it's ethical to start a war, killing thousands of commoners, just to end a fad among the elite?

It's also not a dilemma. It's a quagmire.

Segev
2016-02-23, 10:28 AM
Here's a new one I thought of last night.


In your world, the great and noble Plated Mammoth are prized hunting trophies for rich nobles, who travel the world to obtain one of these status symbols. The Plated Mammoth has a large migratory course throughout much of the continent each year, but for the winter they convene at the north pole for mating season. The northern barbarians there have based their culture around the primal animal spirits, one of which are the mammoth. Sadly, the mammoth is nearing extinction because of the over hunting around the continent.

Here's the thing - the barbarians use the plated mammoth as a staple food source. It is their main source of protein throughout the year. The barbarian hunting was sustainable for generations upon generations, up until about 20 years ago when it became fashionable for southerners to hunt them on their migration and mount them on their walls or outfit their guards with the powerful plating. It is also ingrained in their culture as a rite of passage - a boy does not become a man until he has participated in his first mammoth hunt.

They still have a meager amount of other protein sources - fish and caribou and such... but those are not nearly enough to feed their whole society. After all, they are in one of the most remote parts of the world. There are not many other animals out there. However, the barbarians are tied to the land and believe that the spirits would not let them starve. If you choose to convince them to move south, you will find yourself unable to do so. The elders will hear nothing of it. Some of the younger generations might leave, but the majority will follow the elders.

How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?

This one's actually very easy. I gather my band of adventurers, make sure we have at least one ranger or druid (preferably one of each, if not more), and I either capture an entire herd or split off part of one. I invite some of the younger generation of Northern Barbarians to join my little escapade as a means of learning the long-range hunting patterns of the beasts, and teach them enough animal husbandry to sustain my herd and grow it.

I now breed the things, charging nobles for the privilege of hunting them. The pay, aside from sustenance while working for me, for my barbarian herdsmen consists of letting them chase a portion of the herd off and hunt it, killing one for their rite of passage and driving the rest northward for their tribe to share at the meeting. I keep breeding my own herd, hiring new hands on from the young tribesmen each year, growing my herd and getting rich off of what I charge the nobles to hunt (and for the meat I can provide more efficiently and cheaply than they get from hunting).


Seriously, the solution to this problem is "ranching." The cow isn't going extinct any time soon, after all!

Red Fel
2016-02-23, 10:41 AM
Because it's ethical to start a war, killing thousands of commoners, just to end a fad among the elite?

It's also not a dilemma. It's a quagmire.

First off, that's not a quagmire.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Aune_head_mire3.jpg/320px-Aune_head_mire3.jpg
http://images.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/avatars/Glenn_Quagmire/Glenn_Quagmire-1433782641.gif

Or, if you're using the dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quagmire?s=t), the closest comparison is: a situation from which extrication is very difficult.

It is demonstrably not difficult to extract oneself from these scenarios you've formulated.

Second, the point of an ethical dilemma is that no answer is ethically ideal. I've stated that previously. However, you designed this scenario with an obvious good guy/ bad guy dichotomy. You did that. Your specific goal is "How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?" The goal is to save the mammoth. That means stopping the southern hunters. Which my solution accomplished. Your response - "it's just a fad among the elite" - ignores the fact that your stated goal was to stop it.

Which leads us to point three, something that everyone on this forum except you seems to have grasped: I'm Evil. Hi there. While it would certainly result in less death to the southerners if I simply came up with a new trend to distract them from mammoth hunting, that's (1) more work than it's worth, (2) not nearly as efficient, and (3) not nearly as beneficial to me. Sending them to war? Efficient, easy, and beneficial to me.

Look at it this way. Say I posted the following ethical dilemma - and yes I am calling it a dilemma because it is not a smeerp. You come across a red-skinned, horned Demon torturing a puppy with fire. The Demon can't help torturing a puppy, it's obeying its nature. Demons have to torture puppies, it's what they do. What do you do?

The "correct" answer is obvious: Stop the Demon from torturing the puppy. "But but but," I say, "It's obeying its nature. Why are you punishing it for doing what it cannot help doing?" Because the Demon is an obvious "bad guy" in this scenario.

Several of your scenarios have this lapse. "It's their culture, you need to respect that." No we don't. "It's just a fad." It's an extinction event. When you paint one side as painfully, obviously in the wrong, you inspire no desire to be sensitive to their decisions or to them.

And then my guy comes along and kills them, because Evil.

OldTrees1
2016-02-23, 10:43 AM
Here's a new one I thought of last night.

How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?

Solve what? Sure immoral killing is immoral, but one is not entitled to sustained existence. So the status quo is morally permissible. Voluntarily attempting to sustain their existence without immoral action would be morally superogatory.

So convince those that would leave to leave, do your best to convince the southerners to rein it in without resorting to immoral action, and seek to send food up north.


It's also not a dilemma. It's a quagmire.
I still don't see a distinction. If there is one then what you mean by quagmire seems to be a subset of dilemmas (just as the polished moral dilemmas used as examples are a subset).

Douche
2016-02-23, 10:59 AM
This one's actually very easy. I gather my band of adventurers, make sure we have at least one ranger or druid (preferably one of each, if not more), and I either capture an entire herd or split off part of one. I invite some of the younger generation of Northern Barbarians to join my little escapade as a means of learning the long-range hunting patterns of the beasts, and teach them enough animal husbandry to sustain my herd and grow it.

I now breed the things, charging nobles for the privilege of hunting them. The pay, aside from sustenance while working for me, for my barbarian herdsmen consists of letting them chase a portion of the herd off and hunt it, killing one for their rite of passage and driving the rest northward for their tribe to share at the meeting. I keep breeding my own herd, hiring new hands on from the young tribesmen each year, growing my herd and getting rich off of what I charge the nobles to hunt (and for the meat I can provide more efficiently and cheaply than they get from hunting).


Seriously, the solution to this problem is "ranching." The cow isn't going extinct any time soon, after all!

The barbarians have attempted to domesticate/herd the mammoths before. It results in them becoming tame and losing their plating/aggression.

I seriously thought of that before your post, but didn't think it was important to add in. I was like "who is going to try to domesticate a gosh darn plated mammoth?!?"


First off, that's not a quagmire.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Aune_head_mire3.jpg/320px-Aune_head_mire3.jpg
http://images.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/avatars/Glenn_Quagmire/Glenn_Quagmire-1433782641.gif

Or, if you're using the dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quagmire?s=t), the closest comparison is: a situation from which extrication is very difficult.

It is demonstrably not difficult to extract oneself from these scenarios you've formulated.

Second, the point of an ethical dilemma is that no answer is ethically ideal. I've stated that previously. However, you designed this scenario with an obvious good guy/ bad guy dichotomy. You did that. Your specific goal is "How do you solve the extinction of the plated mammoth and prevent the barbarians from starving?" The goal is to save the mammoth. That means stopping the southern hunters. Which my solution accomplished. Your response - "it's just a fad among the elite" - ignores the fact that your stated goal was to stop it.

Which leads us to point three, something that everyone on this forum except you seems to have grasped: I'm Evil. Hi there. While it would certainly result in less death to the southerners if I simply came up with a new trend to distract them from mammoth hunting, that's (1) more work than it's worth, (2) not nearly as efficient, and (3) not nearly as beneficial to me. Sending them to war? Efficient, easy, and beneficial to me.

Look at it this way. Say I posted the following ethical dilemma - and yes I am calling it a dilemma because it is not a smeerp. You come across a red-skinned, horned Demon torturing a puppy with fire. The Demon can't help torturing a puppy, it's obeying its nature. Demons have to torture puppies, it's what they do. What do you do?

The "correct" answer is obvious: Stop the Demon from torturing the puppy. "But but but," I say, "It's obeying its nature. Why are you punishing it for doing what it cannot help doing?" Because the Demon is an obvious "bad guy" in this scenario.

Several of your scenarios have this lapse. "It's their culture, you need to respect that." No we don't. "It's just a fad." It's an extinction event. When you paint one side as painfully, obviously in the wrong, you inspire no desire to be sensitive to their decisions or to them.

And then my guy comes along and kills them, because Evil.

Woah man, you're scaring me :smalleek:

I still think it's pretty difficult to save the Plated Mammoth. Just look at the rhinos, man.

PS - I think I'll change my avatar to a picture of Quagmire, it it's okay with you :smallbiggrin:

Segev
2016-02-23, 11:10 AM
Here's a relatively old moral dilemma I formulated a while back:

The dwarven people are sick with a plague which is killing off their entire civilization. The plague's only cure, according to their diviners (who we'll trust as infallible and honest for purposes of this discussion), lies in brewing a tea from a single flower growing at the top of a mountain. It is unique in the world, and cannot be replaced. (Insert any justification, probably involving a dying tear of a goddess or something, that you like.)

You, the party, have promised to do all you can to recover it, not wanting the dwarven people to die. In fact, one of your party members is a dwarf who, while he has not yet contracted the plague, knows his family is dying and has risked not being there in their final moments on this chance to save them and his whole people.

Upon arriving in the jungle, you encounter a horrifying barbaric CE civilization of drow. If you are particularly diplomatic, you can convince them to let you pursue this flower despite their cruelty and desire to rip you apart for intruding. As you penetrate to the mountain, you learn why: the flower is a blessed artifact whose magical aura protects a civilization of upright, kind, and enlightened CG high elves who are only able to maintain their noble natures against a natural darkness of their souls due to the magical influence of this flower. Remove it, and at best they will become corrupted, like the drow. More likely, their corrupted nature will lead them to war with the drow of the jungle, and at least one civilization will be wiped out, if not both, in the ensuing war of genocide.

What do you do? If you take the flower, you are almost certainly dooming at least one of these elven races to extinction, and you certainly are cursing the CG ones to be consumed by a spiritual corruption they clearly do not want, even if you destroy their drow enemies first. If you do not, the dwarves are doomed.

OldTrees1
2016-02-23, 11:38 AM
Here's a relatively old moral dilemma I formulated a while back:

The dwarven people are sick with a plague which is killing off their entire civilization. The plague's only cure, according to their diviners (who we'll trust as infallible and honest for purposes of this discussion), lies in brewing a tea from a single flower growing at the top of a mountain. It is unique in the world, and cannot be replaced. (Insert any justification, probably involving a dying tear of a goddess or something, that you like.)

-snip-

What do you do? If you take the flower, you are almost certainly dooming at least one of these elven races to extinction, and you certainly are cursing the CG ones to be consumed by a spiritual corruption they clearly do not want, even if you destroy their drow enemies first. If you do not, the dwarves are doomed.

Well the dwarves are not entitled to continued existence so the first half of the question (before the snip) is when should the flower be used. This is a question of current circumstances vs potential future circumstances. Honestly it is a tough question since both "Use it the first time" and "Use it the last time" are poor axioms to maximize the benefit of the flower.

The second half of your question initially makes the whole dilemma resolve itself. Why would you harm 1-2 civilizations for something the dwarven civilization is not entitled to?

On a deeper look at the second half you question your presumption that removing the flower would harm the elven civilizations. The elves have free will, presumably, and thus they are their last line of defense against the darkness. Not some magical flower. Yet even with this, you would still be stealing the flower. Is theft immoral in this case? Debated. Given the presumptions I have made to this point, I would err on the side of not stealing the flower.

Segev
2016-02-23, 11:42 AM
Not a bad analysis. I suppose the question would be better posed: is it right to even ASK for it?

Because you're right, the dwarves don't have a RIGHT to continued existence.



No, I think I could formulate it better if, instead, there were two sick and dying races - elves and dwarves - and only the one flower. Your party was split when each half accepted the quest on behalf of the race they met, and only upon reuniting at the flower do you realize you both have incompatible goals with it.

Two whom do you give the flower, because it must be formulated into a cure that works only on one race or the other?

OldTrees1
2016-02-23, 12:00 PM
Not a bad analysis. I suppose the question would be better posed: is it right to even ASK for it?

Because you're right, the dwarves don't have a RIGHT to continued existence.



No, I think I could formulate it better if, instead, there were two sick and dying races - elves and dwarves - and only the one flower. Your party was split when each half accepted the quest on behalf of the race they met, and only upon reuniting at the flower do you realize you both have incompatible goals with it.

Two whom do you give the flower, because it must be formulated into a cure that works only on one race or the other?

To ask for it? Sure, hands down. The elves currently have it and if they collectively voluntarily give it up knowing the potential consequences, then there is nothing related to them to stop us from taking it. Furthermore since they had the flower they are the ones with the authority to screw up answering the question of the first half.

Eh, the 1 cure for 2 victims question is not as informative. If there is no difference of moral significance then there is no meaningful choice to be made. So the question transforms into what differences would be morally significant.

Segev
2016-02-23, 12:11 PM
Eh, the 1 cure for 2 victims question is not as informative. If there is no difference of moral significance then there is no meaningful choice to be made. So the question transforms into what differences would be morally significant.

I'm not sure you can have a "dilemma" when there isn't something that ultimately has equivalently bad results either way.

I could be mistaken.

The question of whether you save the dwarves or the elves when you cannot save both seems like the kind of heart-wrenching one intended by these questions, but maybe I miss the point.

The truth is, most ethical dilemmas are not that hard for me. "A third option" is usually pretty easy to find, and if not...well, do your best, make your choice, and stick with it.

Spider-Man's dilemma in the comic books - car full of innocents or his girlfriend - was a hard one for him. I suspect I would have made the other choice, but I am not sure. I do not think either was "wrong," because ultimately Spider-Man is not responsible for saving people; he chooses to as an act of goodness and nobility. Whom he chooses to save is his own choice. The deaths are on the head of the Green Goblin, who actually deliberately set both "sides" up to die.

Red Fel
2016-02-23, 12:17 PM
I'm not sure you can have a "dilemma" when there isn't something that ultimately has equivalently bad results either way.

But that's just it. Because the ultimate outcomes are equivalent, the choice itself lacks punch. If I offer you 8 fl. oz of water in a square glass, or 8 fl. oz of water in a round glass, it ultimately makes no difference which you pick - you're getting the same water. The wrapping (the glass) is the only superficial difference.

Now, if you established both the elves and dwarves in the ecosystem - say, the elves are keepers of nature, plant and beast, but the dwarves are the vanguard of civilization - now you have a dilemma. Without the elves, the world would be inhabitable, but only barely; a grey, harsh wasteland. Without the dwarves, the world would be beautiful and nature pristine, but all civilization would be reduced to the stone age, all technology and convenience would fade and be forgotten, and we would be at the mercy of predators once more.

Do you choose a life of advancement and progress, but in a bleak, desolate world, or a life of glorious natural bounty, but where every day is a struggle with nature's dark side without the protections of civilization and technology? That is a dilemma. Suddenly, the choice between elf and dwarf takes on a distinct, key pressure. You're not just deciding that one arbitrary race lives and the other dies; your decision has a very specific impact depending on which you choose.

Further, there's another aspect to your original scenario. Say we take the flower, and the Good Elves go Bad. Now you have two Evil Elf societies which - by your own explanation - will annihilate each other. Net positive. We are saving a definitely good race - the Dwarves - at the cost of artificial Goodness (the Good Elves are only Good because of outside magic), and we have the bonus benefit of destroying at least one Evil civilization (the Evil Elves or the Good-Now-Evil Elves). Net positive.

OldTrees1
2016-02-23, 12:18 PM
I'm not sure you can have a "dilemma" when there isn't something that ultimately has equivalently bad results either way.

I was remarking on the symmetry not their being 2 undesired outcomes.

Sidenote: A dilemma does not require bad results. The polished dilemmas used as examples focus on taking 2 things consider morally significant and seeing what we would choose if they were brought into conflict.

Example: When to donate?
You are a charitable person and set aside X% of your earnings to donate towards charitable causes. Should you donate it today, or invest it for a while first?

The outcomes are all positive, but what details are morally significant and how does that information help you reach your decision?

Segev
2016-02-23, 12:31 PM
In the "Dwarves = civilization & advancement" and "Elves = preserved nature," the only moral qualm I have is the sorrow that the elves will die. Advancement > "pristine nature" every single time, because with advancement comes an eventual surpassing of whatever wonder lay in the current definition of "pristine nature." Whereas the alternative is stagnation and loss of all that potential.

And the exact decision point on whether to invest or donate depends on expected rates of return, really. As well as perceived need/difference my sum of money at this stage, right now, would make. (i.e., it's only a hard problem because of all the variables to examine; the net result answer is "whatever yields the highest donated sum within the time window of interest.")

OldTrees1
2016-02-23, 12:43 PM
And the exact decision point on whether to invest or donate depends on expected rates of return, really. As well as perceived need/difference my sum of money at this stage, right now, would make. (i.e., it's only a hard problem because of all the variables to examine; the net result answer is "whatever yields the highest donated sum within the time window of interest.")

The variables are handwaved (presume there is return on investment in real dollars). So your answer was "Maximize donated sum within *undefined window*". So you would invest it until the end of the "window of interest" and then donate it.

Others might be troubled by the delay caused by the maximizing strategy.

Segev
2016-02-23, 12:45 PM
The variables are handwaved (presume there is return on investment in real dollars). So your answer was "Maximize donated sum within *undefined window*". So you would invest it until the end of the "window of interest" and then donate it.

Others might be troubled by the delay caused by the maximizing strategy.

Only if there was some pressing imperative for a minimum amount by a narrower deadline than the window of interest. Which would be factored into the calculation.

AMFV
2016-02-23, 12:46 PM
Here's a relatively old moral dilemma I formulated a while back:

The dwarven people are sick with a plague which is killing off their entire civilization. The plague's only cure, according to their diviners (who we'll trust as infallible and honest for purposes of this discussion), lies in brewing a tea from a single flower growing at the top of a mountain. It is unique in the world, and cannot be replaced. (Insert any justification, probably involving a dying tear of a goddess or something, that you like.)

You, the party, have promised to do all you can to recover it, not wanting the dwarven people to die. In fact, one of your party members is a dwarf who, while he has not yet contracted the plague, knows his family is dying and has risked not being there in their final moments on this chance to save them and his whole people.

Upon arriving in the jungle, you encounter a horrifying barbaric CE civilization of drow. If you are particularly diplomatic, you can convince them to let you pursue this flower despite their cruelty and desire to rip you apart for intruding. As you penetrate to the mountain, you learn why: the flower is a blessed artifact whose magical aura protects a civilization of upright, kind, and enlightened CG high elves who are only able to maintain their noble natures against a natural darkness of their souls due to the magical influence of this flower. Remove it, and at best they will become corrupted, like the drow. More likely, their corrupted nature will lead them to war with the drow of the jungle, and at least one civilization will be wiped out, if not both, in the ensuing war of genocide.

What do you do? If you take the flower, you are almost certainly dooming at least one of these elven races to extinction, and you certainly are cursing the CG ones to be consumed by a spiritual corruption they clearly do not want, even if you destroy their drow enemies first. If you do not, the dwarves are doomed.

This is definitely a scenario for taking a third option. How long do we have till the Dwarven people die? If the Elves are inherently evil, then are of the same value as the Dwarves, just because their evil is artificially prevented?

Essentially the crux of the dilemma at it's base stages is the following: Action vs. A Sworn Oath. Causing the Elves to die in this case is a result of action, allowing the Dwarves to die is inaction, so that may play into that dilemma, and would in many philosophical systems. You've given your word to the Dwarves, that also might play into the matter in most philosophical systems. It's a very sticky issue, I would try to find a third option.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-23, 12:49 PM
On the mammoths:

If the goal is to save the mammoth, someone will have to start hunting less mammoths. The southerners use the mammoths mostly for luxury products, the northerners as an important food source. If you can find a way to give the barbarians another food source, like non-plated tame mammoths, both can stop hunting. If that's not feasible or practical at the time, the most reasonable thing is to get the southerners to stop or slow down.

The best way to stop them is probably to reason with them. They'll understand that ones the animals are gone there will be no more hunting for anybody, not even safaris to see the magnificent beasts in the flesh. They'll understand that if all their countries agree to measures they will all get an equal share of the burden, and of the gain.

If the northerners can easily switch to another food source the culture thing is a non-argument. Cultures change way faster than people realize. If they have to stop having manhood rituals that involve killing a mammoth people will have stopped complaining about it two generations from now. That's probably only a few times shorter than the time span in which that great tradition has existed in the first place.

The "it's deeply ingrained in their culture" argument can be useful though, even while being nonsense. If the barbarians refuse to change the southerners might not agree to cutting back because "they'll keep doing it anyway, it's unfair!" Using the culture argument you can get them to accept that the northerners will not change.

It's similar to real world whaling. The whale populations that get targeted are doing pretty well, they can take the current amount of whaling. Despite the reputation of whalers being similar to those of pedophiles and Nazis their job is (looking on a population level, opinions on the suffering of individual whales may vary) not really a bad thing, in the current setup. What whale populations could not handle is if everyone started doing it. To prevent the whole "it's not fair" business we tell ourselves whaling is a part of the culture of these countries. This is true of course, just like it was true for half of all countries before we agreed to stop doing it. "It's part of their culture" is a clever way of allowing some people to do something without the rest getting jealous, and as long as the argument holds out and only some countries are whaling/mammothing there is no problem.



Alternatively, pray to the god of continents to reshape the land and change the mammoths migration route or something, this is an RPG after all.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-23, 06:44 PM
Regarding the flower, the answer is obviously to help the dwarves and screw the elves.

Because they're elves.

Segev
2016-02-23, 07:24 PM
Regarding the flower, the answer is obviously to help the dwarves and screw the elves.

Because they're elves.

Look, just because you have an elf fetish and want to screw them--what? That's not what he meant...? *wanders off, confused*

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-23, 09:01 PM
Look, just because you have an elf fetish and want to screw them--what? That's not what he meant...? *wanders off, confused*

Hey, the two meanings aren't necessarily contradictory. Though the other one is somewhat extraneous to the exercise.

goto124
2016-02-23, 11:31 PM
How does one change a culture for, say, environmental reasons? I imagine it's a long, complicated process.

Coidzor
2016-02-24, 01:40 AM
I was like "who is going to try to domesticate a gosh darn plated mammoth?!?"

Adventurers, of course! Both Gentlemen and otherwise.

Red Fel
2016-02-24, 09:59 AM
How does one change a culture for, say, environmental reasons? I imagine it's a long, complicated process.

I use fire. Well, swords and fire. But the fire is more effective on a larger scale.

Oh, and fear. Terror can go miles towards changing a culture. But it's usually fear of the aforementioned fire.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-24, 10:59 AM
How does one change a culture for, say, environmental reasons? I imagine it's a long, complicated process.

Make an agreement with people like they're sensible folks, see change happen. The first part is optional even. Yeah, people still want their non-euro currencies back, and people in eastern Germany even long back for the DDR, but that's more the inescapable idea of how everything was better in the good old days than actually wanting anything changed back. China went from a culture of large families to a culture of killing baby girls practically overnight, changing everything about their culture that needed to be changed to live with the new rules (and now they're switching to a culture of having two children per couple and murdering about four times less girls). Women and even homosexuals have gotten mostly accepted as human being somewhere between 1900 and 2000. Hell, half the world has a much more conservative and militaristic culture now than they had 20 years ago. And in a few short decades, Americans will have forgotten what it's like to hate soccer (the metric system will still be shunned of course).

It's hard to change a culture, but it's not as hard as it looks. And if you get an initial change accepted, time will wear any resistance left down for you.

goto124
2016-02-24, 07:39 PM
This also depends on the scale of the game, right? If entire campaigns last an in-game year, such change looks rather slow by comparison.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-25, 03:04 AM
True, then again if those mammoths are projected to be completely gone a year from now you're probably too late to do anything about it anyway. Unless you could magic them away to the 23rd century on board a Klingon bird of prey or something.

Reltzik
2016-02-25, 03:56 AM
How does one change a culture for, say, environmental reasons? I imagine it's a long, complicated process.

Not always. Sometimes it's pretty darned easy.

Go to one of the nobles... preferably one with a large manor or villa. Promise him that you can deliver the cultural coup of the decade, putting him at the front of the newest fad and making him the talk of the entire court... if he'll only make x-hundred square feet of the property available for the effort. Still his property, just needed to house his new prize.

Then, go out and capture a live plated mammoth. Add it to his menagerie.

He'll host a party to show off his new prize. Commission a few bards to release a few catchy songs soon afterwards, celebrating what an awesome display of majesty and wealth this is. Anyone can KILL a plated mammoth... nobles everywhere have dozens of their trophies. But how many have a LIVING trophy? Commission floats at parades, paintings of the great event, even a play put on for the public in the plaza.

Before long, the other nobles (and, especially, the royalty) will hook on to the new fad. Everyone will want a live mammoth.

The thing is... yes, they can HUNT dozens of the damn things, but they can't KEEP that many. Two, three tops, maybe five for the palace. Their attentions will turn from hunting to primping, preening, and displaying their new pets. FEED THIS MARKET. Set up mammoth-beautician franchises. Help decorate the mammoths' plates with gold inlay and jewelry, and use the richest dyes to change their colors. When they become less aggressive, have trainers on hand to teach them new tricks to astound and amaze visitors. As their plates fall off, replace them with even gaudier decorations.

Branch out, making cheaper (but still designer) mammoth plushies, wind-up mammoth toys, and customizable mammoth dolls (over 200 different coat-colors, plate decorations, and tusk inlays for over 300,000 possibilities! Collect them all!) Market them to the children of the merchant class.

Net result: Mammoth hunting dwindles to a halt in the south without a war, the northern barbarians have a shot at survival, and you make 500k gp easy. .... oh, and the mammoth bubble collapses twenty-five years from now, but at least the quagmire's been delayed.

Douche
2016-02-25, 02:47 PM
For the dwarves & elves, I think the most ethical solution is to help the dwarves. If the only thing preventing the elves from being evil is a sissy flower, then they should be torn from their sheltered existence of playing in the fanciful dew drop and marshmallow cloud cabbage patches. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD!!!!

Besides, my dwarven companion's family is dying from the plague. Gotta save them.

And ya know what, as I've learned throughout the course of this topic - culture and human nature means nothing, and can be changed over the course of a single heart-wrenching musical number or some crap like that. I'd just sing some disney songs to the newly evil elves and they will be totally down with not being evil anymore. Then I'd arrange some team-building exercises with them & the Drow, so everyone will be one big happy family. Thousands of years of strife means nothing compared to the power of friendship!

Red Fel
2016-02-25, 03:24 PM
Thousands of years of strife means nothing compared to the power of friendship!

Power of friendship? Let's try it again, but more ominous.

Thousands of years of strife mean nothing... Compared to the power...

http://www.allmystery.de/i/t1ce2b1_FiringOrbitalFriendshipCannon.gif

... of "friendship." I'm not the only one who thinks of the "power of friendship" as an orbital cannon, right?

Segev
2016-02-25, 03:51 PM
I'm not the only one who thinks of the "power of friendship" as an orbital cannon, right?

I wouldn't argue with Nanoha. She might Befriend me if I did.

Douche
2016-02-25, 04:17 PM
I wouldn't argue with Nanoha. She might Befriend me if I did.

I suppose since you didn't add in a thrilling twist of unintended consequences to my solution, you have accepted my answer as infallible. :smallcool: I'm so good at quagmires :smallcool::smallcool:

Segev
2016-02-25, 05:04 PM
I suppose since you didn't add in a thrilling twist of unintended consequences to my solution, you have accepted my answer as infallible. :smallcool: I'm so good at quagmires :smallcool::smallcool:

You have perfectly intended consequences. You made your choice, and probably are more comfortable living with it than you would the alternative, if only because you can put the drow out of sight/out of mind, while your friend the dwarf (hopefully) manages to save his family and friends along with the rest of his people.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-02-26, 03:19 AM
Well, inherently evil elves may be a bit outside of the usual reach of these things, but to draw a comparison that at least isn't totally out of place: France and Germany are not currently at war. Although that was mostly through the power of not wanting to be dead and the power of trade. Why fight over scraps if you can all be rich?

Segev
2016-02-26, 12:48 PM
France and Germany are not currently at war. Although that was mostly through the power of not wanting to be dead and the power of trade. Why fight over scraps if you can all be rich?
This is the question at the root of the secret to enlightened self-interest. Smart, forward-thinking villains will work just fine with smart, forward-thinking heroes because the heroes can use the promise of cooperative effort towards what everybody wants in order to entice the villain to avoid actual villainy. It really is rather inefficient, most of the time, compared to what might be construed as "good" behavior.

Douche
2016-03-02, 03:57 PM
So I was reading TVTropes just now and it reminded me of this topic when I arrived at the Take a Third Option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TakeAThirdOption/VideoGames) page. What a silly moral quandary


Dragon Age: Origins gives you a third option at Castle Redcliffe, where the Arl's son Connor has been possessed by a desire demon, torturing the castle denizens and wreaking havoc on the village with frequent attacks from the undead. At first the choices are to kill Connor or sacrifice his mother, Arlessa Isolde, in order for a mage to enter the Fade and slay the demon. But, if you ask about an alternative, you'll be presented with the option of having the mages of the Circle Tower assist in the ritual, sparing both. If you are a mage and choose to enter the Fade yourself, you're also presented with a second layer of this by the desire demon herself: Allow her to leave, temporarily relinquishing control over the boy, in exchange for a reward of your choosing, fight and destroy her, or if you've got enough skill in persuasion, intimidate her into leaving without a fight AND giving you the reward for not destroying her.

They give you an ethical quagmire, presented to you by a mage - which will require a sacrifice. Then if you ask him to elaborate, it turns out the sacrifice is totally unnecessary if you have a few more mages. The mage should have know that in the first place. Was he just excited at the thought of sacrificing someone? How silly to even present this quandary and then give such a hamfisted "third option".... This is why BioWare sucks.

In fact, most of that page just makes me cringe. Just look at the entry for Fable III. I hope the stuff I wrote wasn't that bad, haha

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-02, 07:41 PM
So I was reading TVTropes just now and it reminded me of this topic when I arrived at the Take a Third Option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TakeAThirdOption/VideoGames) page. What a silly moral quandary


Dragon Age: Origins gives you a third option at Castle Redcliffe, where the Arl's son Connor has been possessed by a desire demon, torturing the castle denizens and wreaking havoc on the village with frequent attacks from the undead. At first the choices are to kill Connor or sacrifice his mother, Arlessa Isolde, in order for a mage to enter the Fade and slay the demon. But, if you ask about an alternative, you'll be presented with the option of having the mages of the Circle Tower assist in the ritual, sparing both. If you are a mage and choose to enter the Fade yourself, you're also presented with a second layer of this by the desire demon herself: Allow her to leave, temporarily relinquishing control over the boy, in exchange for a reward of your choosing, fight and destroy her, or if you've got enough skill in persuasion, intimidate her into leaving without a fight AND giving you the reward for not destroying her.

They give you an ethical quagmire, presented to you by a mage - which will require a sacrifice. Then if you ask him to elaborate, it turns out the sacrifice is totally unnecessary if you have a few more mages. The mage should have know that in the first place. Was he just excited at the thought of sacrificing someone? How silly to even present this quandary and then give such a hamfisted "third option".... This is why BioWare sucks.

In fact, most of that page just makes me cringe. Just look at the entry for Fable III. I hope the stuff I wrote wasn't that bad, haha

Out of interest, have you actually played the game? Because I think you've overstated the case.

Firstly, the Circle of Magi (more or less the only mages in the country) has at that point in the story been overrun by demons. The option to get their help is only available if you've already dealt with that problem (and haven't done so by wiping the mages out, which is possible). Furthermore, the mage presenting the problem is an outcast from the Circle, and thus he wouldn't be able to go to them - you can get their help because, if you've cleared out the demons, they owe you big time. Based on the resources available at the time (as far as the locals are aware), the options they present you with are the only ones that are open. It's only because you bring outside resources (that they were not aware of) that the third (and clearly better in most ways - though some characters worry that there isn't enough time, this doesn't turn out to be the case) option presents itself.

Reltzik
2016-03-02, 08:37 PM
Here's an ethical quagmire I put up here years and years and years ago.

A huge tribes of kobolds with powerful sorcerers has laid siege to a city of tens of thousands, throwing up tunnelworks (small-sized) around the entirety of it and using traps, ambushes, and spells to prevent any large-scale relief or evacuations. A few fliers and high level casters can get in and out, but they're nowhere near numerous enough to move large numbers of the population, much less food supplies. Similarly, while some magic users can produce food for the city's population, there's nowhere near enough to keep everyone fed. To make things worse, kobold saboteurs managed to tunnel in and burn much of the city's food stores.

Messengers from the kobold tribe promise to lift the siege and vanish if the city simply surrenders every resident who was born on the 5th of any month... and that means those there when the ultimatum is delivered, not however many are left after a few days of teleporting them out. The kobolds reveal that the "Fifths" will be killed and their souls left free to continue to their afterlives as normal, as part of a ritual that will create a magical demiplane and allow the entire nation of kobolds to "ascend" and leave this world for a paradise of their own making. The astrological signs required for the ritual are pretty restrictive, but they must commence the ritual within the next three weeks. Therefore, the city has two weeks to surrender, or the kobolds will tunnel undermine the city and collapse it wholesale to ensure that the Fifths die. Divinations confirm that the kobolds are telling the truth -- once they have their sacrifices, they will simply perform their ritual and leave the world forever, never to harm anyone ever again.

Handing over the Fifths will result in a little over 3% casualties for the city. A massed assault on the kobold siegeworks by every able-bodied person in the city, it is estimated, could succeed, but is estimated (with a lot more margin of error) to result in about 15% losses to the city's population as a whole. Finally, the city's engineers are pretty sure that they can prevent the kobolds from tunneling in, and the kobolds don't know it. It's possible that they will simply give up and leave after three weeks have passed... but by then, even with the best of rationing possible, at a minimum 10% of the city's population will be dead from starvation. And who knows whether they'll actually give up or not once their ritual has been thwarted?

OldTrees1
2016-03-02, 09:32 PM
Handing over the Fifths will result in a little over 3% casualties for the city. A massed assault on the kobold siegeworks by every able-bodied person in the city, it is estimated, could succeed, but is estimated (with a lot more margin of error) to result in about 15% losses to the city's population as a whole. Finally, the city's engineers are pretty sure that they can prevent the kobolds from tunneling in, and the kobolds don't know it. It's possible that they will simply give up and leave after three weeks have passed... but by then, even with the best of rationing possible, at a minimum 10% of the city's population will be dead from starvation. And who knows whether they'll actually give up or not once their ritual has been thwarted?

I have no right to sacrifice another. I can accept their sacrifice and be grateful for their virtue, but I will not sacrifice another. You might have heard the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". It is important to remember that it is that "one" that is speaking. It is the argument for self sacrifice and not for sacrificing another.

Segev
2016-03-02, 11:22 PM
I have no right to sacrifice another. I can accept their sacrifice and be grateful for their virtue, but I will not sacrifice another. You might have heard the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". It is important to remember that it is that "one" that is speaking. It is the argument for self sacrifice and not for sacrificing another.

The phrase is said again by the same actor...but this time, he's in the "many." It reinforces the point you were making.

Reltzik
2016-03-02, 11:40 PM
I have no right to sacrifice another. I can accept their sacrifice and be grateful for their virtue, but I will not sacrifice another. You might have heard the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". It is important to remember that it is that "one" that is speaking. It is the argument for self sacrifice and not for sacrificing another.

So are you saying ask the Fifths to volunteer, or are you saying to ask people to sacrifice themselves in an all-out assault, or are you saying to ask people to sacrifice themselves to starvation, or do you have a fourth option?

goto124
2016-03-02, 11:41 PM
I have no right to sacrifice another. (snip)It is the argument for self sacrifice and not for sacrificing another.

Thing is, no matter what you will be sacrificing other people:


Handing over the Fifths will result in a little over 3% casualties for the city.

A massed assault on the kobold siegeworks by every able-bodied person in the city (snip) to result in about 15% losses to the city's population as a whole. (snip) And who knows whether they'll actually give up or not once their ritual has been thwarted?

(Only 15%?)

The counterargument would be that handing over the Fifths would result in the least bloodshed, while trying to continue the war on the kobolds would result in a lot of suffering (see post above) with little to no certainty of ending the whole thing.

The trouble would be (say) parents angry at your for sacrificing their unlucky-to-be-born-on-the-Fifth children. Yea, consent is an issue here.

If a GM set this up and the players can't reach an agreement in an hour, Take A Third Option has to come on. The GM could, for example, have someone come in and reveal that the kobolds have no intention of giving up even after the city hands over the Fifths. Thus making "masses assault on kobolds" the only solution.

In a TRPG, Take A Third Option helps keep the game running, and can be introduced only when the players don't arrive at their own decision.

Reltzik
2016-03-03, 12:16 AM
Only 15%?

15% of the whole population, which is quite different from the able-bodied population. Figure if half the population is children, elderly, infirm, sick, not particularly fit, or otherwise ill-suited to fight, then that's 30% losses among those who partake in the assault, which... is pretty nasty losses by the standards of a victorious army in real-world Medieval or Renaissance times. That's getting decimated three times over.

OldTrees1
2016-03-03, 12:34 AM
So are you saying ask the Fifths to volunteer, or are you saying to ask people to sacrifice themselves in an all-out assault, or are you saying to ask people to sacrifice themselves to starvation, or do you have a fourth option?

I am not a Fifth so I cannot volunteer for that, but I can volunteer to be in the assault or to forgo my rations. I have no right to demand another do so. I can ask provided I do so in a way that does not exert pressure. If a Fifth does not volunteer, then we will either fight or starve. If too few volunteer to fight, then we will starve.


Thing is, no matter what you will be sacrificing other people:
How so? I choose the word "sacrifice" for a reason. It does not include volunteers (those are self sacrifices, different moral agent) nor does it include deaths resulting from the previous moral agent's choice (starvation is the result of the kobolds' prior choice). But it does include forcing people to go die. So I volunteer myself, the number of volunteers determines the outcome.

Coidzor
2016-03-03, 03:45 AM
The only moral option is using those high level casters to murder the kobold leadership. Which is kinda what they're there for.

Giving in to such despicable creatures only encourages further aggression by other evil races, even if they're telling the truth that all kobolds will leave forever and none will come back.

They certainly shouldn't be allowed paradise paid for in stolen blood, murder, and aggression.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-03, 05:27 AM
The only moral option is using those high level casters to murder the kobold leadership. Which is kinda what they're there for.

Giving in to such despicable creatures only encourages further aggression by other evil races, even if they're telling the truth that all kobolds will leave forever and none will come back.

They certainly shouldn't be allowed paradise paid for in stolen blood, murder, and aggression.

Yeah, I'm with you. Placating one predator will encourage more. Even if we have to take the high casualties of the assault, Pour Encourager Les Autres is important here. Ideally we try a lower casualty approach (possibly targeting the Kobold supply lines with our high-levels - maintaining a siege is almost as difficult, logistically speaking, as outlasting one)

Giving up the Fifths is only an absolute last-resort scenario, if there is no other avenue available.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-03, 06:31 AM
What do those kobolds need us for anyway? They have a ritual that will make them all ascend to paradise, but they need to sacrifice all humans born on the 5th of the month that currently reside in this city to power it? That's... oddly specific. I bet if our wizards help them by the next time the right stars roll around they can have a version of the ritual that runs on cows or something.

Now, think carefully about our offer, goblin king. We are fully willing to help you, but I must remind you that if you refuse I still spent a lot of time acquiring a very specific skillset. If you take them I will track you down, I will find you and I will kill you.

Taken 36, this time it's kobolds.

Douche
2016-03-03, 08:22 AM
Out of interest, have you actually played the game? Because I think you've overstated the case.

Firstly, the Circle of Magi (more or less the only mages in the country) has at that point in the story been overrun by demons. The option to get their help is only available if you've already dealt with that problem (and haven't done so by wiping the mages out, which is possible). Furthermore, the mage presenting the problem is an outcast from the Circle, and thus he wouldn't be able to go to them - you can get their help because, if you've cleared out the demons, they owe you big time. Based on the resources available at the time (as far as the locals are aware), the options they present you with are the only ones that are open. It's only because you bring outside resources (that they were not aware of) that the third (and clearly better in most ways - though some characters worry that there isn't enough time, this doesn't turn out to be the case) option presents itself.

I've only played the first zone of the game. I don't like Real-time turn-based gameplay... Like Baldurs Gate 2. If there was an option to play fully turn based, with action points and such, then I'd have played the game more. I don't feel like I'm in control otherwise. Fully real time (if it's something like WoW where you're only in control of one person), fully turn based, but not that sick amalgamation of the two.

Anyway, I'm not familiar with the story, but the way it's presented in that example is that the mage is the one who tells you to contact the Circle of Magi - but only if you ask him to elaborate. It's like if I told you that I only have turd sandwiches to eat for lunch. If you're hungry, you have to eat a turd sandwich. Then you ask me, "But Douche, are there any other options that could possibly take a little longer but wouldn't require me to eat a turd sandwich?" and I'm all "Well, we could just order pizza. I know I said that the only option was to eat a turd sandwich, but yeah pizza is available. I just didn't think to tell you about it cuz I thought you wanted a turd sandwich right this second. Also I didn't bother providing all the options, because I thought it would be funny to see you eat a turd sandwich"

Segev
2016-03-03, 09:31 AM
Well, since you have demonstrated the ability to teleport people out, start teleporting Fifths out. Then tell the kobolds (bluff, if you have to) that there are no such people in the city. They couldn't hand over people born on the fifth of that month if they wanted to, because they just aren't there. Better if you're telling the truth. Can you evacuate 3% of the population?

Another option is one that's been suggested and which will seem the most natural to most player groups in D&D: launch a commando assault on the kobold siege, executing their leadership. This would most likely play out as a stealth op to a degree, and you could run the encampment as a dungeon-style thing.

You can certainly ASK the townsfolk for the Fifths to see if they will unanimously volunteer for sacrifice.

You could also try negotiating with the kobolds: if they'll hire and pay for all costs to cast raise dead on the Fifths once the ascension has occurred, the Fifths will volunteer. A tough sell on both sides, perhaps, but if the kobolds have to spend money rather than their own lives and they want this badly enough to launch a siege, they may well agree, at which point you just have to convince the Fifths to cooperate. (Maybe throw in additional compensation from the kobolds for the Fifths' service and pain, to pay the Fifths and make it an incentive.)

Frozen_Feet
2016-03-03, 09:55 AM
Coidzor and TeaMustFlow raise an important point about altruistic punishment. It increases co-operation in a society in the long term when people are willing to resist evil-doers even if it only costs them in the short term.

On the other hand: if Kobolds are the primary monstrous presence and already outsiders to human society, getting rid of them for good might override such concerns. There is no point to punishing those who feel no remorse and will not change their ways.

Trampaige
2016-03-03, 10:38 AM
I've only played the first zone of the game. I don't like Real-time turn-based gameplay... Like Baldurs Gate 2. If there was an option to play fully turn based, with action points and such, then I'd have played the game more. I don't feel like I'm in control otherwise. Fully real time (if it's something like WoW where you're only in control of one person), fully turn based, but not that sick amalgamation of the two.

Anyway, I'm not familiar with the story, but

First, you can pause at any time and give orders simultaneously to everyone. You have complete and utter control of the game and as long to think as you want. My first play through was on nightmare, and I never let the AI control a single action. I'm stalled about 75% through the game due to life.

Second, you're arguing about non reality. The demon is capable of untold amounts of damage, catastrophic... It has already killed hundreds of people, and is temporarily weakened. The way the situation is presented, it is incredibly easy to assume that going to get help is going to be punished by you coming back to the demon at full strength and everyone dominated.

The mage performing the ritual has been sentenced to death by the tower. The mages general attitude towards possession is to execute the host, and they are watched over by an order of paladin that violently enforces that.

The ritual costs a literal fortune of magical material to perform. It isn't available except via the mages and normally wouldn't be performed.

The webpage is as simplified as can be.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-03, 11:05 AM
I've only played the first zone of the game. I don't like Real-time turn-based gameplay... Like Baldurs Gate 2. If there was an option to play fully turn based, with action points and such, then I'd have played the game more. I don't feel like I'm in control otherwise. Fully real time (if it's something like WoW where you're only in control of one person), fully turn based, but not that sick amalgamation of the two.

Anyway, I'm not familiar with the story, but the way it's presented in that example is that the mage is the one who tells you to contact the Circle of Magi - but only if you ask him to elaborate. It's like if I told you that I only have turd sandwiches to eat for lunch. If you're hungry, you have to eat a turd sandwich. Then you ask me, "But Douche, are there any other options that could possibly take a little longer but wouldn't require me to eat a turd sandwich?" and I'm all "Well, we could just order pizza. I know I said that the only option was to eat a turd sandwich, but yeah pizza is available. I just didn't think to tell you about it cuz I thought you wanted a turd sandwich right this second. Also I didn't bother providing all the options, because I thought it would be funny to see you eat a turd sandwich"

As I have said, that summary is incorrect. As I recall, the suggestion is made by the PC, and either eagerly accepted, or shot down (if you haven't done the other quest/did it wrong) for perfectly good reasons. To use your... charming... analogy, I am the one who suggests ordering pizza, you say 'But, Tea, I only know one Pizza place around here and it's closed (and I'm on their banned list)', then I say 'Nah, they changed their opening times, and the manager's a friend of mine, it'll be fine' (or, alternatively, 'Well, calisse de tabarnac. Guess it's gonna have to be turd' if I haven't done the prerequisite).

Might I suggest you stick to analysing examples you're more familiar with?

Edit: Oh my, a Trampaiging ninja!

dascarletm
2016-03-03, 12:01 PM
The only problem with these Ethical Quagmires in an RPG setting, is most of the time the solution is, "Send in that plucky group of adventurers that the whole world seems to revolve around." :smalltongue:

AMFV
2016-03-03, 01:52 PM
The only problem with these Ethical Quagmires in an RPG setting, is most of the time the solution is, "Send in that plucky group of adventurers that the whole world seems to revolve around." :smalltongue:

Ah, see it's more cost effective than mobilizing an army. Paying Adventurers their exorbitant fees is cheaper than an actual military thing, and less disastrous to your economy. Also who cares if adventures die, if a bunch of soldiers die, its a PR nightmare.

dascarletm
2016-03-03, 02:09 PM
Ah, see it's more cost effective than mobilizing an army. Paying Adventurers their exorbitant fees is cheaper than an actual military thing, and less disastrous to your economy. Also who cares if adventures die, if a bunch of soldiers die, its a PR nightmare.

Exactly, plus usually if they die another band just happens to show up. Sometimes if you are lucky they will do it for looting rights and the fame. You won't have to shell out a copper.

Reltzik
2016-03-03, 04:44 PM
The problem with sending high level casters, or adventurers, after the leadership is that the leadership (as mentioned) consists of several high-level casters themselves. The kobolds outmatch the city's resources on this front.

Also as mentioned, the kobolds indicated in their message that evacuating the Fifths would be considered a violation of their ultimatum, and they would respond by destroying the city.

Douche
2016-03-03, 05:03 PM
The obvious solution is to have a bunch of clerics cast spirit guardians (or some such other class/spell combo that allows you to have a radius of damage move with you, depending on the edition) and then have them walk through the scores of kobolds, slaying them all. I stole that from something I read one time... some kind of D&D challenge where some dudes had to kill like 20000 10hp monsters to defend a castle. If someone could link it, I'd high five you.

Anyway, I feel like that scenario isn't really up to me. If the fearful masses give into sacrificing their own for safety instead of fighting, then they are pretty weak. I'd probably advocate fighting, but it's not like I can just tell everyone that I'm the boss and you have to do what I say.


First, you can pause at any time and give orders simultaneously to everyone. You have complete and utter control of the game and as long to think as you want. My first play through was on nightmare, and I never let the AI control a single action. I'm stalled about 75% through the game due to life.

Second, you're arguing about non reality. The demon is capable of untold amounts of damage, catastrophic... It has already killed hundreds of people, and is temporarily weakened. The way the situation is presented, it is incredibly easy to assume that going to get help is going to be punished by you coming back to the demon at full strength and everyone dominated.

The mage performing the ritual has been sentenced to death by the tower. The mages general attitude towards possession is to execute the host, and they are watched over by an order of paladin that violently enforces that.

The ritual costs a literal fortune of magical material to perform. It isn't available except via the mages and normally wouldn't be performed.

The webpage is as simplified as can be.

Please don't get hostile. I said from the beginning that I am unfamiliar with the game. Thank you for correcting me.

I still don't like games where you have to pause to issue orders, and are otherwise real-time though. If you've ever played Arcanum, you can choose between being fully real time or fully turn based. There is no awkward in-between pausing bullcrap. I just don't like that style of gameplay.

Coidzor
2016-03-03, 07:53 PM
The problem with sending high level casters, or adventurers, after the leadership is that the leadership (as mentioned) consists of several high-level casters themselves. The kobolds outmatch the city's resources on this front.

Then we go and we die and that guy doesn't get to DM anymore. :smalltongue:

goto124
2016-03-03, 08:03 PM
The only problem with these Ethical Quagmires in an RPG setting, is most of the time the solution is, "Send in that plucky group of adventurers that the whole world seems to revolve around." :smalltongue:


Then we go and we die and that guy doesn't get to DM anymore. :smalltongue:

I guess the keyphrase is the bolded part - an RPG is a game where the only 'real' people are the players behind the PCs, and ultimately these players are playing to have fun.

Pyrous
2016-03-03, 09:35 PM
Doesn't a Candle of Invocation solve the kobold problem?

AMFV
2016-03-04, 08:52 AM
Doesn't a Candle of Invocation solve the kobold problem?

That is true, you give them all candles of invocation and then they'll be spending all of their time arguing over the rules with the DM and then have no time to wage the siege.

Red Fel
2016-03-04, 09:58 AM
Doesn't a Candle of Invocation solve the kobold problem?

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t187/Fiddlesticks85/koboldlogo.png

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-04, 12:52 PM
Doesn't a Candle of Invocation solve the kobold problem?

A properly used Candle of Evocation solves any problem, in the same sense that a nuclear bomb does.

"With one candle, I can challenge the gods." - Milo Amastacia-Liadon (https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8096183/18/Harry-Potter-and-the-Natural-20), 5th level Wizard.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-04, 03:56 PM
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:

NOTE from author: Discussing illegal drugs is a major infraction on this forum, and will earn the persons doing it one third of a ticket to ban town. I liked this idea too much not to use it, but I'm walking the line here, and I'd like for everyone to keep the hobo's addicted to booze and cigarettes. Those things will kill them fast enough anyway, no need to get them in any deeper.

You're in some sort of "gritty realistic" setting or similar. The party have ended up inside a subplot about helping folks addicted to alcohol, smoking and/or maybe a few similar fantastic substances. (Assume you're a social worker, a doctor and a barbarian if you want to get specific. Steve didn't get the note on what kind of game this was going to be, but he's enjoying himself.) You find out a pharmaceutical company developed a pill that can cure any addiction. Tests have progressed to the point where they are applying for a marketing license. So far the tests indicate the pill is most likely harmful in the long run, but the researchers expect continuous use of it to still come out better than a lifetime of say alcohol or tobacco abuse. The pill isn't going to be super expensive or scarce or any of that. An individual can still take alcohol and such if they're on this stuff and experience both the upsides and all the liver damage, they just won't get addicted, either physically or mentally. The downside? This cure is extremely addictive itself. As in: the Dalai lama, mister Miyagi or Yoda could probably kick the habit without too much trouble. (And Yoda is cheating, his biochemistry is completely different from ours.)

Your DM sends several NPC's your way asking for your help in getting enrolled in one of the final trials or in obtaining the drug afterwards (they are all broke, and the local pharmacist has a restraining order against them, don't ask). Where would you draw the line? Exactly how desperate would someone need to be for you to consider helping them get a new addiction, quite possibly for life? Or, how well off and clueless would they need to be for you to strongly suggest this is not the best option for them?

dascarletm
2016-03-04, 05:35 PM
Snip
Where is the ethical problem? Why is addiction a bad thing? :smalltongue:

I wouldn't buy them anything. If they can afford it, great, if not, then they can't fuel their <whatever> addiction either.

I would help them get it in case of the restraining order. They are presumably adults, and can chose to be addicted to whatever they want. I also would be sure to inform them of this products adictive capabilitites. It's not my place to control their lives.

OldTrees1
2016-03-04, 06:23 PM
Your DM sends several NPC's your way asking for your help in getting enrolled in one of the final trials or in obtaining the drug afterwards (they are all broke, and the local pharmacist has a restraining order against them, don't ask). Where would you draw the line? Exactly how desperate would someone need to be for you to consider helping them get a new addiction, quite possibly for life? Or, how well off and clueless would they need to be for you to strongly suggest this is not the best option for them?

I would categorically suggest another path.

The treatment is a stronger addiction than the addictions it cures. Since I consider the mental effects of addiction to be significantly worse than the physical effects, I would rate the treatment as worse than the illness and certainly worse than alternative treatments.

Reltzik
2016-03-04, 08:38 PM
Just go by the FDA procedures for drug trials or the equivalent in whatever nation you're playing in. They're pretty stringent (in most of the developed world) and cover these sorts of cases for human testing. Why solve the ethical dilemma yourself when scores of professional bioethicists have done it for you?

Frozen_Feet
2016-03-05, 08:55 AM
Where is the ethical problem? Why is addiction a bad thing? :smalltongue:

Addiction is a bad thing because it makes a person liable to do socially and ethically questionable things to get their next kick - the more liable the stronger the addiction is. Addictions are personal level Utility Monsters, if you know the term.

(Many actual addictions also involve physical and economical dependency which makes trying to go "cold turkey" an impossibility. Alcohol is one such substance - get an alcoholic cut alcohol for a week, and have fun watching them hallucinate, convulse, spit blood and possibly die. But for our hypothetical drug, these were not specified.)

And because of this, Lawful people don't let friends do drugs. It's bad for society, bad for the collective.

OldTrees1
2016-03-05, 10:01 AM
Addiction is a bad thing because it makes a person liable to do socially and ethically questionable things to get their next kick - the more liable the stronger the addiction is. Addictions are personal level Utility Monsters, if you know the term.

(Many actual addictions also involve physical and economical dependency which makes trying to go "cold turkey" an impossibility. Alcohol is one such substance - get an alcoholic cut alcohol for a week, and have fun watching them hallucinate, convulse, spit blood and possibly die. But for our hypothetical drug, these were not specified.)

And because of this, Lawful people don't let friends do drugs. It's bad for society, bad for the collective.

Good description of how addiction is harmful.

The moral significance of self harm is a complex, nuanced, and debated subject. Partially because the subject is so broad, but also because the framing of the same circumstance through a different filter can rapidly change how the circumstance is viewed.

I hold that addiction is to be categorically avoided but I recognize that others can rationally disagree.