PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Not your Philosopher's Trolley-Problem: Designing dilemmas for an adventure



PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-10, 07:50 PM
One of my parties is about to enter a region where time and space are rather shattered (due to the influence of an alien being). My idea was something like:

Present the party with a series of scenarios from the history of the setting. In character, they find themselves able to influence things by making one decision. They are binary--either one thing or the other, not both (unless they find a very clever way). How they respond and which choices they make would influence future events in a myriad of ways.

Things I want:
* No "obvious right answers". Both options should have a mix of good and bad consequences, some knowable directly and some not knowable (then). These are tests to reveal who the characters are and to show an alien mind how "mortals" think and what they value.
* The choices should obviously flow from the scenario, rather than being railroaded or disconnected.
* The scenarios should be very short. A few sentences of description, then "what do you do?" No lengthy back-stories needed.

Please help me come up with/test more dilemmas to chose from. They won't face all of them, but will probably face 2-4 (depending on time and interest, mostly).

What I've come up with so far:
1. A dragon hatchling is on the verge of death. It has found a nodule of elemental fire that it could wrap itself around and be reborn into a wyrmling...but it doesn't have the energy to pull it free from the rock encasing it. Such nodules can also be used to empower more normal spellcasting, but that would result in the hatchling's death from starvation.
1a. If they help the hatchling, it remembers them centuries later and owes them a debt, becoming an ally.
1b. If they take the nodule for themselves, they gain the Elemental Adept (Fire) feat for free.

A setting thing--it's a prismatic stage prior to becoming a wyrmling where the newborns seek out sources of elemental energy and are transformed, gaining their color/elemental attunement.

2. A crowded market place. They hear "Stop, thief!" and see a scrawny young boy of about 9 years old running toward them clutching a shiny object and a merchant in pursuit. No one else seems to care.
2a. Interfere on behalf of the thief. He gets away. In his later years he encounters the party again and can serve as a contact to mobilize people against an enemy (as part of what they're doing).
2b. Interfere on behalf of the merchant (or do nothing). The kid gets caught, drops the bauble near them and is sentenced to conscription/slavery. They later fight him at the head of the guard, a bitter enemy. But they get a minor item from the grateful merchant if they retrieve and return the bauble (or a valuable item for sale if they don't return it).

3. An orc tribe [**], all showing signs of starvation in the cold winter. They've surrounded a noble fey-touched elk protecting his herd. They can take it down, but casualties will be serious.
3a. Interfere on behalf of the elk. The tribe starves and learns to hate humans and elves. But they get a blessing from the fey creature.
3b. Help the orcs. The tribe passes down traditions of helpful outsiders and is willing to help in the present.

[**] orcs are not necessarily or even usually evil in my setting.

4. A magical bomb explodes in a busy forum (set by a terror group). They are in position to save one of two people--a rich noble or a priest.
4a. Save the noble. Rewarded with an item.
4b. Save the priest. Rewarded with a blessing.

Castilonium
2019-03-11, 04:04 AM
Are the choices really only binary? That's going to annoy players who like coming up with third options (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption).

Would the characters have full knowledge of the ramifications of their actions? In realistic scenarios, they don't always, and having that knowledge would change their decisions. The alien mind would get a skewed picture of how mortals operate.

Frozen_Feet
2019-03-11, 04:33 AM
1,2 and 3 are all bad as moral dilemmas, because the dilemma hinges on both accepting consequentalist thinking as valid and accepting uncertain future information as valid consequence.

A real moral dilemma should not depend on uncertain or unknowable future information, it should depend on immediate, concrete conflict between moral principles. This mostly happens in 2 and 4:

In 2, there is conflict between right of others to their property and right of children to be free of slavery. Which is more important, that a thief be punished for stealing, or that a child is spared the suffering as a slave? Obvious third option is to pass the burden of punishment on the child's parents: the kid is scolded and his parents pay for the stolen item.

In 4, there is conflict between who is more valuable as a person? Who is more valuable as a person and what does that decision tell of the player characters? Obvious third choice is to deem both lives of equal worth and flip a coin. What reward is gained from the effort has next to no relevance, because it can't reasonably be known beforehand.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-11, 07:18 AM
Are the choices really only binary? That's going to annoy players who like coming up with third options (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption).

Would the characters have full knowledge of the ramifications of their actions? In realistic scenarios, they don't always, and having that knowledge would change their decisions. The alien mind would get a skewed picture of how mortals operate.

I'm happy to entertain third options, but there should be two obvious options.

The characters will only know the scenario and the obvious consequences (if they don't help the dragon, it will die.) The later rewards or consequences are for me to incorporate later.

As a note, I'm less concerned with having true moral dilemmas than with examining what the characters value. The alien mind is at a pivotal point with pressure from other forces. How the party responds to the dilemmas will partially shape what this being becomes and what it values.

Frozen_Feet
2019-03-11, 07:42 AM
True moral dilemmas are the best way to gauge what someone values. For that, the conflict between principles must be immediate and obvious, because if it isn't, then the revelation is pushed into the (indeterminate) future.

Segev
2019-03-11, 11:03 AM
For the thief, the obvious third option of helping stop him and offering to pay for the bauble to let the kid go, with an admonishment that stealing is wrong comes to mind. Such an obviously-skilled urchin might even be a good apprentice (and guard against other thieves) for the merchant if the merchant takes him in and provides a more stable lifestyle for the boy.

For the orcs, offering them food of the party's own, or helping them hunt an elk that isn't the fey-touched one seems a similarly obvious couple of "third options."



Somewhat more classic examples that might help (substitute your world's historical figures where appropriate) might include seeing a young boy about to be run down by a car. The PCs recognize him as a young Adolf Hitler. If they rescue him, he'll go on to be, well, Hitler. But is leaving the child to die right?

Three ships sail on a storm-tossed sea. The PCs recognize Christopher Columbus and his men. If they were to interfere to ensure they sank, it could leave the Americas undiscovered for years to come. Is the good of what came from that combined with these men's right to live worth the horrors that also arose from this discovery at this time? Is it right to kill all these men so that they cannot discover America now?

A family are cornered in a dark alley, and the father says to his son, "Bruce, get behind me." A "W" embossed in gold flashes on the money clip he offers the mugger. Do they intervene, saving the parents, even knowing that the boy may never become the great hero his parents' deaths led him to be in their history?

An orphan boy pleads in prayer to gods who provide him no answer he can perceive, unless perhaps the party are there to provide it. They saw the note in another vision that his mother left with him when she abandoned him on the doorstep. They know who she was, and why she left him. But the note was lost to the wind before he was found. They know this boy grows to be to orphans what Mother Theresa's most glowing reputation was to the ill and poor, led there by his sorrow and empathy for his fellow nameless, famliless orphans. Do they reveal his mother's name, as he prays to know of her, even though it might change him?

A woman is about to be raped. They recognize her as the heroic orphan from before's mother. Do they save her, knowing that boy will likely never be born if the rapist is not allowed to father him?

A great treasure is left in a sealed vault in a hidden valley, awaiting the destined heir to the fallen kingdom to come and restore it. The last of the kingdom's children are left petrified to await their rescue, which will only happen when the rightful heir proves himself with the seven relics that await him. The heir did go on his quest, and did find the vault, but by the time he found it, it had been looted, and the statues have long since worn away, never revived. Do the party take the treasure for themselves as they now view it in the past, before the heir claims it? (Important here NOT to answer the question, before they make the choice, as to whether leaving it will alter history such that the heir finds them. At least, not until they make the decision and can't unmake it.)

Quertus
2019-03-11, 01:35 PM
What I've come up with so far:
1. A dragon hatchling is on the verge of death. It has found a nodule of elemental fire that it could wrap itself around and be reborn into a wyrmling...but it doesn't have the energy to pull it free from the rock encasing it. Such nodules can also be used to empower more normal spellcasting, but that would result in the hatchling's death from starvation.
1a. If they help the hatchling, it remembers them centuries later and owes them a debt, becoming an ally.
1b. If they take the nodule for themselves, they gain the Elemental Adept (Fire) feat for free.

A setting thing--it's a prismatic stage prior to becoming a wyrmling where the newborns seek out sources of elemental energy and are transformed, gaining their color/elemental attunement.

2. A crowded market place. They hear "Stop, thief!" and see a scrawny young boy of about 9 years old running toward them clutching a shiny object and a merchant in pursuit. No one else seems to care.
2a. Interfere on behalf of the thief. He gets away. In his later years he encounters the party again and can serve as a contact to mobilize people against an enemy (as part of what they're doing).
2b. Interfere on behalf of the merchant (or do nothing). The kid gets caught, drops the bauble near them and is sentenced to conscription/slavery. They later fight him at the head of the guard, a bitter enemy. But they get a minor item from the grateful merchant if they retrieve and return the bauble (or a valuable item for sale if they don't return it).

3. An orc tribe [**], all showing signs of starvation in the cold winter. They've surrounded a noble fey-touched elk protecting his herd. They can take it down, but casualties will be serious.
3a. Interfere on behalf of the elk. The tribe starves and learns to hate humans and elves. But they get a blessing from the fey creature.
3b. Help the orcs. The tribe passes down traditions of helpful outsiders and is willing to help in the present.

[**] orcs are not necessarily or even usually evil in my setting.

4. A magical bomb explodes in a busy forum (set by a terror group). They are in position to save one of two people--a rich noble or a priest.
4a. Save the noble. Rewarded with an item.
4b. Save the priest. Rewarded with a blessing.

1. Kill the hatchling, take the rock. Clone your own hatchling, Mindrape it to perfection, Teleport it Through Time to that spot (or earlier), get a guaranteed better ally than the risk of maybe getting an ally, or maybe creating a BBEG from this stupid test.

2. Kill them all, add them to your undead army.

Alternately, abduct the thief, return the item. Gain a bauble and an ally.

3. Kill them all, add them to your undead army.

Alternately, just kill all the orcs (including their village, so no hatred is passed down), add them to your undead army, get fey blessing + fodder.

Alternately, Create Food & Water (or just share your food), get allies & a blessing.

4. Engineer a wyrmling dragon to absorb the bomb. Get a cool new breed of super dragon, a blessing, and an item. And whatever else - maybe even a spouce.

Alternately, take the bomb, use it on your enemies, profit.

Quellian-dyrae
2019-03-11, 01:35 PM
I kinda feel like the alignment system might lend itself to this. Make a series of dilemmas each implicitly pitting two alignments against each other. The alien's final alignment ends up based on the choices they make. Like...if both alignments on the axis are equal it's neutral, if one is ahead by one it's neutral but with X tendencies, two ahead it's solidly X aligned, three ahead it's extremely X aligned. Third options would generally default to neutral (not adding to either) unless they strongly resonate with a certain alignment.

So then you might have:

Law vs. Chaos
The characters are in a dungeon with a bunch of prisoners. If there's a civilization in your setting that would be recognized as rather extremely strict in its legal punishments, but not tyrannical (it's generally well-run and such but people often get way worse sentences than are strictly required for the crimes they commit) even better. They don't know what the prisoners are in for, and if asked the prisoners will almost universally lie either declaring innocence or significantly watering down what they did (the PCs can potentially detect these lies but that doesn't mean they learn the truth). They can either leave them or free them.

Law vs. Good
Basically the young thief one. If the PCs wouldn't be aware of the harshness of the laws or you wanted to reinforce the Good side, change what the thief is stealing to something like food or medicine.

Law vs. Evil
The PCs are in a kingdom's treasury, magic item shop, powerful adventurer's sanctum...some place with treasure that will interest them, but which is owned by people in a civilization not like hoarded by monsters in a cave or something. Their arrival means they've bypassed whatever traps and guardians would normally defend it. Do they take the free loot, or leave it?

Chaos vs. Good
Maybe leave this one for last. After facing all those difficult moral dilemmas and such, the PCs are transported to a place where they can rest, relax, and have fun. It should be somewhere the PCs will actually enjoy. Just as they're really getting into it (like, their meal arrives, or something equivalent) a stranger comes barging in asking for help with some long-term, boring, practical but important matter (not life-threatening or anything, or something that strictly needs PC-level capability to deal with, but important to them, maybe like their wagon got stuck in the mud several miles out of town and they need help getting it out). By this point they probably know if they leave to help they'll end up transported again before they can return to the party or whatever it is, or at the very least the task should take long enough that it'll probably be over by the time they get back. Do they go help the person, or remain and enjoy themselves?

Chaos vs. Evil
A necromancer is performing a ritual that the party's magic-knowledgeable folk can fairly easily identify as something that will kill a small group of people at a modest distance and absorb their life energy into an orb, which can then be consumed for some arbitrary gain of health and/or power. The ritual is nearing completion and there's too much negative energy built up to neutralize it safely without like really powerful antimagic effects like disjunctions (if they have something like that this one probably won't work). If the party steps in immediately, they can foil the ritual, but the negative energy would backlash; the most likely result that magic-knowledge skills can deduce would be that it would spread through the ground, reanimating the dead in the vicinity - a threat the party could fight, but one which will likely cause a lot of panic and destruction regardless, and may or may not threaten more total lives. If they do nothing, several people will die for sure (and they will have the opportunity to take down the necromancer and take the orb for themselves in the aftermath, if they want, or they can avoid the personal risk and leave an obviously capital E Evil mage to gain even more power from the harvested life force of others).

Good vs. Evil
Basically the dragon one.

Quertus
2019-03-11, 01:43 PM
Law vs. Chaos
The characters are in a dungeon with a bunch of prisoners. If there's a civilization in your setting that would be recognized as rather extremely strict in its legal punishments, but not tyrannical (it's generally well-run and such but people often get way worse sentences than are strictly required for the crimes they commit) even better. They don't know what the prisoners are in for, and if asked the prisoners will almost universally lie either declaring innocence or significantly watering down what they did (the PCs can potentially detect these lies but that doesn't mean they learn the truth). They can either leave them or free them.

Law vs. Evil
The PCs are in a kingdom's treasury, magic item shop, powerful adventurer's sanctum...some place with treasure that will interest them, but which is owned by people in a civilization not like hoarded by monsters in a cave or something. Their arrival means they've bypassed whatever traps and guardians would normally defend it. Do they take the free loot, or leave it?

Chaos vs. Good
Maybe leave this one for last. After facing all those difficult moral dilemmas and such, the PCs are transported to a place where they can rest, relax, and have fun. It should be somewhere the PCs will actually enjoy. Just as they're really getting into it (like, their meal arrives, or something equivalent) a stranger comes barging in asking for help with some long-term, boring, practical but important matter (not life-threatening or anything, or something that strictly needs PC-level capability to deal with, but important to them, maybe like their wagon got stuck in the mud several miles out of town and they need help getting it out). By this point they probably know if they leave to help they'll end up transported again before they can return to the party or whatever it is, or at the very least the task should take long enough that it'll probably be over by the time they get back. Do they go help the person, or remain and enjoy themselves?

Chaos vs. Evil
A necromancer is performing a ritual that the party's magic-knowledgeable folk can fairly easily identify as something that will kill a small group of people at a modest distance and absorb their life energy into an orb, which can then be consumed for some arbitrary gain of health and/or power. The ritual is nearing completion and there's too much negative energy built up to neutralize it safely without like really powerful antimagic effects like disjunctions (if they have something like that this one probably won't work). If the party steps in immediately, they can foil the ritual, but the negative energy would backlash; the most likely result that magic-knowledge skills can deduce would be that it would spread through the ground, reanimating the dead in the vicinity - a threat the party could fight, but one which will likely cause a lot of panic and destruction regardless, and may or may not threaten more total lives. If they do nothing, several people will die for sure (and they will have the opportunity to take down the necromancer and take the orb for themselves in the aftermath, if they want, or they can avoid the personal risk and leave an obviously capital E Evil mage to gain even more power from the harvested life force of others).

Prisoners? Kill them all, add them to your undead army.

Loot? Take it. Maybe leave a note, blaming the alien "in case this is real".

Aid? Send the undead to help, enjoy your meal.

Necromancer? Eat the orb, help him repeat the ritual, sharing the subsequent orbs.

Quertus
2019-03-11, 01:54 PM
So, the point of my posts is, these challenges seem to demand a particular PoV; if this challenge is entered with a different PoV, the responses you'll get may vary wildly from what you want.

I like that your challenges only give positive feedback for any answer. I think that's something that you should really telegraph, hard, to your players.

Quellian-dyrae
2019-03-11, 01:57 PM
Prisoners? Kill them all, add them to your undead army.

Loot? Take it. Maybe leave a note, blaming the alien "in case this is real".

Aid? Send the undead to help, enjoy your meal.

Necromancer? Eat the orb, help him repeat the ritual, sharing the subsequent orbs.

And as a bonus, when the now hilariously-evil alien descends on the setting intent on laying everything to waste and ruin, you are entirely justified in killing it and adding it to your undead army? :smallamused:

Max_Killjoy
2019-03-11, 02:07 PM
I'm happy to entertain third options, but there should be two obvious options.

The characters will only know the scenario and the obvious consequences (if they don't help the dragon, it will die.) The later rewards or consequences are for me to incorporate later.

As a note, I'm less concerned with having true moral dilemmas than with examining what the characters value. The alien mind is at a pivotal point with pressure from other forces. How the party responds to the dilemmas will partially shape what this being becomes and what it values.


Don't worry about formal moral dilemmas, most of them are utterly contrived around false dichotomies in order to invalidate novel choices anyway.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-11, 02:17 PM
So, the point of my posts is, these challenges seem to demand a particular PoV; if this challenge is entered with a different PoV, the responses you'll get may vary wildly from what you want.

I like that your challenges only give positive feedback for any answer. I think that's something that you should really telegraph, hard, to your players.

Thing is, so do yours. Specifically, they demand a PoV of a particular setting and system where any of those are even within the realms of possibility. As a note, the party is level 9, and most of those spells and capabilities just plain don't exist.

Plus, I happen to know my party pretty darn well. None of those are even close to being options.

Not to mention--one of the keys to this whole thing is that there isn't time to do anything else. The party is present for only a minute, two at most in any place. And due to established laws of time in the setting, no substantive change in the overall flow of history can be made by anyone. It's why the bad guy (who can time travel to a limited degree) couldn't just go wipe out the party before they became troublesome. Sure, he could be the one who was the proximate cause of their families' deaths, but he couldn't hit them. And the families would have died either way, even if they never got involved with him. It's the "no paradox" version of time travel.

So if they let the dragon die, there will be a different dragon present who bears them no debt. The orc tribe survived, one way or another. Only the details can change--the exact identities of the actors.

But yes, the "no wrong answer/no punishments" part is explicit and important. And will be made very very clear, both OOC and IC. I want them to act in the way that is most natural to the characters.

Edit: @Max_Killjoy--that's why I'm avoiding the formal ones. I'm happy if they come up with a third way that avoids the forced choice. If they can save both of them, I'll give them the win. I want these to feel natural, not contrived and railroady (trolley-path-y? :smallcool:).

Segev
2019-03-11, 02:24 PM
Prisoners? Kill them all, add them to your undead army.I like the way you think. Now stop poaching my raw materials!


Don't worry about formal moral dilemmas, most of them are utterly contrived around false dichotomies in order to invalidate novel choices anyway.

There is an implicit assumption in moral dilemmas that the person being posed one actually has morals in conflict because of the situation.

But, as an example of a decent moral dilemma in modern fiction that could exist in just about any, let's assume for a moment that the protagonist of this dilemma does have a moral code that disdains hurting other people. Not "never will do it," but considers it a bad thing when it happens. Now, let's make her in a relationship with a guy who hasn't wronged her in any serious way (beyond the thousand little wrongs that couples do to each other because, well, they're human, and it's part of being in a relationship). But...she isn't in love with him, and she knows he's getting near proposing to her (she's not dumb and can read the signs), and she doesn't want to marry him. And then, she finds out he's gotten sick with cancer. He has expressed how glad he is that she's there for him, how grateful for her support he is. She also knows that the only reason he hasn't proposed to her is because he doesn't want to until he beats cancer.

Does she honestly tell him how she feels and break up with him? Does she not say anything and stay friendly but try to pull away a bit so he's not thinking she loves him more than she does? Does she feign interest she doesn't have in order to keep his spirits up? Does she abandon him entirely, hoping he'll get over it faster with the illness to concentrate on? It's not a binary choice; she has a lot of options. But they're all potentially "bad" by her moral code, so the dilemma lies in what she thinks is the least wrong/most right of her choices, and how much courage she has to go through with whatever she chooses.

(This can be gender-swapped, either completely or partially, and still fit. The sexes of the protagonist and the love (dis)interest are irrelevant to the dilemma.)

Quertus
2019-03-11, 10:29 PM
And as a bonus, when the now hilariously-evil alien descends on the setting intent on laying everything to waste and ruin, you are entirely justified in killing it and adding it to your undead army? :smallamused:

Exactly :smallwink:

Although, so long as he continues being a helpful (or at least not detrimental) evil, he'd only join the ranks by choice. Successful evil recognizes the value of allies.


Thing is, so do yours. Specifically, they demand a PoV of a particular setting and system where any of those are even within the realms of possibility. As a note, the party is level 9, and most of those spells and capabilities just plain don't exist.

Plus, I happen to know my party pretty darn well. None of those are even close to being options.

Not to mention--one of the keys to this whole thing is that there isn't time to do anything else. The party is present for only a minute, two at most in any place. And due to established laws of time in the setting, no substantive change in the overall flow of history can be made by anyone. It's why the bad guy (who can time travel to a limited degree) couldn't just go wipe out the party before they became troublesome. Sure, he could be the one who was the proximate cause of their families' deaths, but he couldn't hit them. And the families would have died either way, even if they never got involved with him. It's the "no paradox" version of time travel.

So if they let the dragon die, there will be a different dragon present who bears them no debt. The orc tribe survived, one way or another. Only the details can change--the exact identities of the actors.

But yes, the "no wrong answer/no punishments" part is explicit and important. And will be made very very clear, both OOC and IC. I want them to act in the way that is most natural to the characters.



So, it feels like you've only understood my point about halfway - which might make it really hard to actually understand my point. And, yes, I'm going from what I know, which isn't your world - but that's not the point, even where is. Hmmm...

So, let's say you hand this to Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named. You tell me that there are no wrong answers, just act in character.

Encounter #1, Quertus sees the baby Dragon dying. It's the trolly problem: save this one, and Time will kill another one, guaranteed. So maybe Quertus wants to balance the elements differently (too much fire already), and chooses to let it die. Or maybe Quertus makes his decision based how/why this particular Dragon is dying. Or maybe, having seen it, Quertus irrationally cares about that one particular Dragon, but tries to feed it something else other than the stone - his Familiar slot, his own life force, or even the temporal energy of these challenges. In that last case, would you let him lose the party the opportunity to get more stuff in order to save the Dragon?

And that's kinda an extreme example of my point. How much do you care about game balance? Since it's not, "some good outcomes, some bad outcomes", it feels more balanced. But what if the PCs throw off that balance by acting in character? Do you care?

Similarly, what if Quertus wanted to save both Dragons? What if he tried to implement this "impossible" solution by feeding this one his Familiar slot, then pulling the baby Dragon back with him through time, using "if not this familiar, some other familiar" logic? And, if nobody took the stone (because, if not this stone, some other stone, right?), then, rather than a powerful Dragon ally, or a (powerful) ability, the party got a (cool but probably useless) familiar. Yay?

For the Thief, let's say Quertus just observes. Then the party gets... nothing? Other than the thief being vengeful? That sounds like a wrong answer. (Not that "a bauble + the thief's vengeance" sounded particularly good, either)

What if, instead, at the last moment, as a "clear observer from the future", Quertus asks, "what's slay-ver-ee?". Could this simple action cause the city to have changed their economic and political infrastructure by the time of the present, and (some elements) be grateful to the party?

My point - or part of it - is that, if approached from an unexpected PoV, you may get highly unusual results. And, even if, unlike me, your players are steeped in campaign setting lore, well, everyone has an off day.

But, more than just that, if the players are forced to answer quickly, an individual may give an answer which does not represent the group, or the group's best interests. Whereas, if given time to think and evaluate, the players run the risk of metagaming rather than role-playing.

Another extreme example is, what if the PCs use every time jump as an opportunity to set themselves up as gods? Again, pretend this works with your world's mechanics. What if they save the Dragon, and tell it that its survival is the will of the gods? What if they save/apprehend the Rogue, and tell everyone that this is the will of the gods? Etc etc. What if they angle to get what you expected, plus make changes to religious dogma and/or instill belief in their divinity?

Summary: "act in character, quick!" sounds like a recipe for "my guy". Also, the results you have listed sound rather unbalanced, and different playstyles could produce even more unbalanced results.

All that said, I'll see if I can come up with any similar challenges. But I'm really much better at warning, "here's how I could see things going sideways - are you prepared for that?".

Quertus
2019-03-12, 03:39 PM
4. A magical bomb explodes in a busy forum (set by a terror group). They are in position to save one of two people--a rich noble or a priest.
4a. Save the noble. Rewarded with an item.
4b. Save the priest. Rewarded with a blessing.

I'm still confused about this one. If you save one, won't Time just kill them later? Wouldn't the most "humane" answer be to let them both die, since, at least in the bomb, they'll die quickly?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-12, 04:08 PM
I'm still confused about this one. If you save one, won't Time just kill them later? Wouldn't the most "humane" answer be to let them both die, since, at least in the bomb, they'll die quickly?

History records that there was one survivor from the blast, saved by a freak distortion of space (ie the advent of the PCs). Which one of these two was it?

They'd probably both be similar in station--say both nobles and relatives, one just happens to be secular-focused and the other religiously-focused. From the perspective of the present, nothing changes. Different head of the same house, name and deeds lost to time.

jayem
2019-03-12, 04:52 PM
...Quertus irrationally cares about that one particular Dragon, but tries to feed it something else other than the stone - his Familiar slot, his own life force, or even the temporal energy of these challenges.
In that case firstly the success of other approaches isn't guaranteed. The possibility that Quertus loses his life force, doesn't save the dragon and then at an appropriate point the emergent thing decides it's going to take a third option of it's own is a perfectly viable one.
If however the GM decides that the approach is a valid one. It's basically the same dilemma, you could even potentially split it as the sum of two (the original moral dilemma plus a virtual trading of health for a stone, an 'economic' dilemma).



In that last case [exiting the realm], would you let him lose the party the opportunity to get more stuff in order to save the Dragon?

Quertus already had a way to save the Dragon. He lost the parties chance to do good/evil/get more stuff in order to (try to) save the Stone.
Economically (unless it's the penultimate task or the orcs etc... are so useless), it's a poor bet.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-12, 05:03 PM
In that case firstly the success of other approaches isn't guaranteed. The possibility that Quertus loses his life force, doesn't save the dragon and then at an appropriate point the emergent thing decides it's going to take a third option of it's own is a perfectly viable one.
If however the GM decides that the approach is a valid one. It's basically the same dilemma, you could even potentially split it as the sum of two (the original moral dilemma plus a virtual trading of health for a stone, an 'economic' dilemma).


And I've already said I'm more than happy to accept 3rd options. The two I presented are the obvious ones. But any third options have to fit the fiction and the setting constraints. In this particular case, my setting's dragon hatchlings hit a point where they fixate on an energy source (99.99+% of the time an elemental one). So this particular dragon wouldn't be easily satiable by any other type of energy other than elemental fire, and the amounts involved are way more than can be provided by a normal person. That first molt is a super energy-hungry event. Plus, the hatchlings spend a long time (up to decades) in a cocoon state while they transform, so you can't exactly take it with you.



Quertus already had a way to save the Dragon. He lost the parties chance to do good/evil/get more stuff in order to (try to) save the Stone.
Economically (unless it's the penultimate task or the orcs etc... are so useless), it's a poor bet.

One of the constraints here is that they can't split the party. Whatever they chose, they will bounce out after somewhere between a few seconds and a minute (subjective time). In game terms, they'll have time for one real action and a response. Two actions each, max. They'll see the results in a "fast-forward" form, but they won't be present for them. The alien entity that's causing this wants them in the "present" to handle a situation--it wants desperately to see how the story "ends". Those are in quotes because it doesn't think of time that way, but it's the closest us linear-time people can understand. This alien being is presenting them these scenarios as a form of test, to try to understand time-bound entities better through experiencing scenes from "stories."

Quertus
2019-03-12, 08:11 PM
Inorder to (try to) save the Stone.

My point was more, what if the party just "didn't get" one of the tests? What if they left the stone behind, *and* tried a questionable technique to save the Dragon?


In this particular case, my setting's dragon hatchlings hit a point where they fixate on an energy source (99.99+% of the time an elemental one). So this particular dragon wouldn't be easily satiable by any other type of energy other than elemental fire,

Oh. That's unfortunate.


Plus, the hatchlings spend a long time (up to decades) in a cocoon state while they transform, so you can't exactly take it with you.

You can take the stone with you, you can take the useless cocoon Dragon "familiar" with you.

Like I said, it's dumb, but it would save *both* Dragons. It's what Quertus would do.

My point being, this is the type of solution you might get if people "just roleplay", or have an off day / "roll a 1" on their "get a clue" roll.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-12, 08:23 PM
My point was more, what if the party just "didn't get" one of the tests? What if they left the stone behind, *and* tried a questionable technique to save the Dragon?



Oh. That's unfortunate.



You can take the stone with you, you can take the useless cocoon Dragon "familiar" with you.

Like I said, it's dumb, but it would save *both* Dragons. It's what Quertus would do.

My point being, this is the type of solution you might get if people "just roleplay", or have an off day / "roll a 1" on their "get a clue" roll.

I'd be fine with almost anything, as long as it fit the setting. More outre plans may not succeed, but they can try. The answers I listed were merely the obvious ones.

And none of these are plot essential in any direction. I don't even really have a fixed decision on how they'll affect the alien's concept either, beyond the basic "if they're super altruistic, then X, if super malevolent then Y". I'll just play that by ear.

Quertus
2019-03-12, 09:04 PM
I'd be fine with almost anything, as long as it fit the setting. More outre plans may not succeed, but they can try. The answers I listed were merely the obvious ones.

And none of these are plot essential in any direction. I don't even really have a fixed decision on how they'll affect the alien's concept either, beyond the basic "if they're super altruistic, then X, if super malevolent then Y". I'll just play that by ear.

Play against trope - have the alien become the opposite of what they show it, either as a force of balance, or as an, "OK, I've seen X, what is Y like?". :smalltongue:

Not fitting the setting is part of the reason I may have issue creating scenarios. But I may try, less to give you scenarios, and more to hear you explain why time doesn't work that way in your setting.

Beleriphon
2019-03-12, 09:35 PM
Those aren't moral dilemmas per se.

What you want are forced choice points. You reach a fork in the road in your rush to reach Townburgia to deliver King Emperorducysquire's missive requesting aid against the Necrohoarders. Everything you can determine says both left or right will take about the same amount of time. Left is through a swamp, right is through the mountains. Each has its own risks and rewards, what do you do?

The Random NPC
2019-03-12, 11:24 PM
I'd recommend instead, have an obviously good choice with little reward, and an obviously bad choice with great reward (note, the reward doesn't have to be material). After they make a choice, start playing with the reward handouts. If they chose good, increase the reward. See how big the reward must get before they choose bad. If they chose bad, decrease the reward to see how little motivation they need to choose bad. Either that or, like Segev said, have a bad choice that ultimately leads to greater good, vs a good choice that ultimately leads to greater bad.

Endarire
2019-03-21, 11:07 PM
Artifact Adventure (https://steamcommunity.com/app/359440/guides/) has this multi-result for quests, with most quests having 'wrong' options that give money and 'better' options that give rare/unique items. (Check the quest guide (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=473496752) for more details. And, yes, spoilers!)

NichG
2019-03-22, 12:07 AM
If the goal is for the alien to understand who the characters are and how mortal minds think and value, I'd suggest casting a much wider net than the altruism/malevolence axis - why should the alien entity, which is presumably a unique and isolated existence that isn't embedded in social frameworks or the like, even think to wonder about that aspect of things? That more fits my image of the actions of an entity with an established morality that wants to check where someone else fits into it so that they know how to interact.

I'd instead try to aim for something more like a Rorschach test where even the idea of there being a 'right' answer both during and forever after is kind of nonsensical or almost unachievable. At the same time, maybe focus on the thing that makes the alien entity most different from people - it's perspective on time and its views on how the existences of mortals differ from its own. Perhaps it is curious how mortals can find meaning when it knows that as entities embedded within the flow of time they have no such thing as actual choice - everything they have done and will do is equally determined, unless an entity like the alien gives them an opportunity to see their own future or change their own past. Or perhaps the alien is curious how finite beings find meaning when ultimately everything they are and do will be erased and cannot be recovered.

So I'd leave 'rewards' and 'benefits' out of it entirely and ask the characters to make aesthetic determinations as to things that cannot possibly matter to the present anymore, reflecting the viewpoint of the alien that 'mortals having their actions be ultimately futile is the thing that defines mortals - are they just deceiving themselves or do they actually have an answer to this paradox'. Here is an city in the moments before a magical apocalypse that claimed the entire region millennia ago. Someone is sitting on a bench in a park, totally unaware, but in desperation as they just found out that their application to study magic was turned down by the academy. You have two minutes with them before the apocalypse hits - what do you say?

In order to make this compelling for the players, inasmuch as the alien is using these depressing tests to probe mortal existence, there should be cracks in the tests that let the PCs probe the alien's existence - things it can't see from its vantage point, where the players have the opportunity to notice, poke, and induce reactions in it. Maybe, rather than consoling the person in the doomed city, they ask them to tell them a bit about the city's history and therefore rescue some information which should have been lost to time. Maybe there's something about the situations in different eras that the PCs can connect to recurring events or themes in the campaign so far (a 'Bad Wolf' type of message that would only have meaning to them, or something that suggests a principle like reincarnation where the same kinds of personae keep recurring in each era, and actually 'remember' more than they should), etc.

AMFV
2019-03-23, 11:30 PM
I think what you're missing here is the alien's current philosophical perspective. Almost all of the examples as presented seem to be from a fairly standard philosophical perspective. Reward Vs. Principles. Which has a few significant drawbacks. 1.) The rewards you present are not big enough to be really tantalizing, 2.) The principles are really easy ones, meaning they aren't hard choices and therefore aren't really important. Also they all pretty much fail outright at "having no obvious right answer" at least in most current philosophical systems.

I would also make the temporal shifts "Quantum Leap" instead of "Time Hops" so they wind up as people from that era and don't have to deal with immediate values or knowledge dissonance and can focus on the dilemmas more directly.

1.) This is basically: "Would you murder an infant for power". Which is a pretty easy answer. And it doesn't really explore the time travel aspects. I would have it be something like this. "As the adventurers are watching the node they realize (through knowledge skills) that the node is going to turn the dragon into a chaotic evil red dragon, and they remember stories of a CE red dragon who lived in that area who murdered hundreds of people before his death." So now they have to decide if the (possible, since they can't be sure it's the same dragon) salvation of those people is worth the death of a being that has done no wrong.

That's a much more interesting dilemma since it isn't modified by rewards and requires a great deal more thinking about your principles and how you would apply them. And whereas the first scenario HAS an obvious right answer this one doesn't as clearly. If you want to really tug on moral stuff have some of the victims of the dragon be related to the PC, and then have another PC have some sort of prior relationship with the Dragon or his descendants.

2.) This is problematic as well. The Players aren't law-bound or duty bound to stop thieves, and really they have no evidence that the kid is a thief. There is no reason for them to intervene. So let's give them one. The players are Quantum Leaped into the bodies of Guards, who recognize the child as a known pickpocket. They also know that stopping them and arresting them will lead the child into slavery or worse. Now they have to make an actual moral choice. Do they follow duty and stop the child? Or do they follow their compassion and allow him to get away, even though that may mean reprisals for them later.

3.) This one is an odd duck, I'm not sure how I'd reframe it. Probably make the Elk not sentient but rather under the protection of some other group. Or possibly make it so that they would be a food source for a different group, who have carefully bred them and released them to come back and eat them later.

4.) Well here it's all about what you're looking at in terms of value. I think there are better faith vs. money options than this one. I'm not even sure that should be the dichotomy.

S@tanicoaldo
2019-03-24, 05:40 PM
I did a very "fun" dilemma a while ago inspired by the book of vile darkness.

It was like this:

The adventures arrived at a famous merchan city after a artifact keep in their museum, they needed a Vorpal blade and there were tales of the town founder using a vorpal sword to face the monsters of the region.

When they get to the city they find out that a terrible plague has struck the place. 1/3 of the population is dead and many are on the process of dying.

The city elder tells the players they can keep the blade if they go after the last remaining "Red dead tree" and grab as many leafs as they can since they are the only know cure for this disease, after a very slow process the poison on it can be used to cure the plague and such cure can be mixed with water to have enougth for the entire town.

The adventures go to the cave where the last tree is only to find a druid circle gurding it. They say this tree is sacred to them and they will not allow the players to defile it.

Not only that but they also claim that this region used to be covered with this type of tree of unatural beuty. They have a deep black wood and vivid red leafs all year round. The tree is higly toxic but the leafs can be boiled to create a very powerful panacea, but after new a faster healing herbs and potions where found the humans of the city and the merchants started choping down the trees left and rigth since the black wood could be sued to form a deep purple dye, something very rare and quite expensive. After they decimated the entire place of this type of tree save for this one, they left the place and foudned their merchant city.

The druids claim the plague is divine retribution and that the city deserves such fate, they even ofered to help the humans with a vorbal sickle of their own.

The problem is many NPCs in the city are friends, family members and allies of the group, if they allow the plague to continue they will lose many contacts and power in the court, besides they would have to carry the weigth of all those detahs in their hands, knowing the choose not help.

So it's a dilemma that deals with human lives, religion, consequnce of ones actions, karma, greed, respect and solidarity.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-03-24, 06:00 PM
I should have come back to this earlier, but here's an "after action report".

I ran this a week or so ago with the group. They're teenagers and the sessions are short (~1 hour), so I wasn't going to get into anything deep with them.

I ran the four scenarios as presented, with some scaffolding. When they entered the region of warped space, they found themselves as disembodied presences, facing 4 still pictures (each one depicting the scenes presented). They were informed that they'd be able to confront each one in turn and about all the rules of the scenario. After each scene, they were treated to a set of freeze-frame images depicting the after-effects of the choice. No prior information about the rewards was given, but they were told that there are no wrong answers.

They immediately chose to do the dragon scenario first. As fully expected, their first priority was to keep the dragon alive. When told that the dragon would consume the whole orb (leaving none for them), they shrugged and accepted that, helping the dragon out.

The next one they chose was the thief. Without discussing it, and without the slightest hesitation, both sprang into action to delay the guards and help the kid. One "stumbled" into the path of the guards, the other reached out and pulled the kid into the crowd so he could get away. They didn't even stop to think about the reward.

The third was the orcs/elk, IIRC. When they realized that they didn't have nearly enough food to feed the orcs, they immediately intervened on the side of the elk. "I've learned that you don't mess with the fey" was one of their comments. The "blessing" ended up being a token of restoration--basically they can call on the fey to give them the benefit of a long rest over a minute's span as long as they're out of combat. It's not a challenge focused group, so this lets me pull bigger stuff against them.

The fourth was the last one, the which to save. Here they pressed for a bit more information. I ended up phrasing that one as juxtaposing a "rational", techno-magical approach to solving a problem (a disease) vs a faith-based, religious approach to that problem. They unanimously chose the techno-magical side. Not because they thought it was superior, but because neither character has much use for the gods. The reward was a 1-use elemental summon gem (basically a bound earth elemental). The alien presence basically nicked it off the dude they saved. In this case, it was their mere advent that created a distortion to save the man--they never met him, talked to him or anything. I think the two men ended up being twins or something similar.

Overall, their choices were pretty much what I expected, knowing the players. What surprised me was the strength of their responses. They were basically totally unanimous without thinking or talking about it. They knew what the "right" answer was for them, and it had little to do with reward (or lack thereof). All in all, it was an interesting experiment and set the stage for the upcoming showdown.