Throwing the pcs for a loop.

[Calthropstu]

So you have been on the rails for an adventure, the hooks are pretty deep. You have been following orders, getting paid, killing monsters...

Now the gm throws you for a loop. You find out that the people you've been working for have been doing something REALLY BAD.

The attacks you have been defending against have been completely warranted. However, the people you have been defending include innocent people. Assume mid level heroic characters, what would you do?

The enemy wants to destroy an entire nations way of life. The way of life is fueled by secret suffering. The innocent people who rely on these will be slaughtered en masse if it continues, but if they are left alone untold millions will continue to suffer.

[Segev]

Step 1: Identify the exact mechanisms being employed and what they do. You can't act to protect if you double-down on your mistake of not knowing what you're protecting.

Step 2: Figure out what you have power over and what you don't (yet).

Step 3: Determine what, of those things you can affect, you can find alternatives for the good, or find ways to protect people from the collapse/loss/harm caused by its destruction. Begin the mitigation efforts, or at least setting them up. You want these in place when you start breaking down the existing system by saving lives and such.

Step 4: Figure out how to take control of/destroy things you can't, yet. Work on mitigations as in step 3 while plotting the takeover.

Step 5: Finish getting mitigation and replacement in place, and take down the wicked system.

[Hackulator]

I feel like in order to give a good answer I need more detail on the "secret suffering" that is fueling this way of life. What's being done and why is it necessary to the way of life you are describing?

[Calthropstu]

I feel like in order to give a good answer I need more detail on the "secret suffering" that is fueling this way of life. What's being done and why is it necessary to the way of life you are describing?

It could be anything. Hypothetical scenario.

[Segev]

I feel like in order to give a good answer I need more detail on the "secret suffering" that is fueling this way of life. What's being done and why is it necessary to the way of life you are describing?


It could be anything. Hypothetical scenario.

Imagine it's something like this (http://www.mccc.edu/pdf/eng102/Week%209/Text_LeGuin%20Ursula_Ones%20Who%20Walk%20Away%20Fr om%20Omelas.pdf), then, is my suggestion.

[Hackulator]

It could be anything. Hypothetical scenario.

A hypothetical scenario still has details. You have to weigh the suffering vs the good that is coming from it and see if it balances out. You also have to consider whether the suffering is necessary for that good to be done, or just an easy way to get it done. If the former, then maybe you allow it to continue, if the latter then good character's have an obligation to find another way. Also, who is "the enemy"? Are they evil but still have a reasonable argument, or are they neutral or even good and you've been totally hoodwinked. The answer in this situation is "get more intel and make a decision based on that intel".

Seven pages is more than I'm going to read for this hypothetical.

[oxybe]

depends on my theoretical character and the specific acts, if they actually mess with my character or not.

My pathfinder Kitsune Gon gave up adventuring after a particularly rough scenario that left only him and one other PC alive and many innocents dead. He now drinks to forget instead of for fun like he used to. the loss of friends and innocents broke him in ways he didn't know possible.

My old Warlock Shump made deals with demons and liches, let himself become an avatar of a demon lord for a short time, got mangled in innumerable ways and after dying and being tortured in the hells for his misdeeds came back with a vengeance after a raise dead. Collateral damage is nothing in the eyes of Shump and unless he's being paid for his services why should he care about the plight of some unknown people?

Nisha the tiefling witch would gladly burn Sparta to save Athens if the latter was her home. She wasn't a good person, but she loved her home and the people in it dearly and actively did good by it's people as a healer... but when push came to invading armies, Nisha had no qualms summoning hailstorms and infernal dinosaurs to harass the enemy troops at night to disrupt their sleep and destroy their foodstuffs, and a little bit of brainwashing to turn town stomping cyclops into a loyal cave guard was just another day. her garden had many defaced stone statues in horrified poses. You don't mess with crazy bug witch.

the specifics of a situation matter if we're talking about how specific characters would react as each have different viewpoints amd experiences to consider. otherwise...

Theoretically, yes, my theoretical character may have an adverse reaction to a theoretical bad situation.

[Kyrell1978]

Step 1: Identify the exact mechanisms being employed and what they do. You can't act to protect if you double-down on your mistake of not knowing what you're protecting.

Step 2: Figure out what you have power over and what you don't (yet).

Step 3: Determine what, of those things you can affect, you can find alternatives for the good, or find ways to protect people from the collapse/loss/harm caused by its destruction. Begin the mitigation efforts, or at least setting them up. You want these in place when you start breaking down the existing system by saving lives and such.

Step 4: Figure out how to take control of/destroy things you can't, yet. Work on mitigations as in step 3 while plotting the takeover.

Step 5: Finish getting mitigation and replacement in place, and take down the wicked system.

I think this is about as good advice as you can give in this situation.

[MoiMagnus]

So you have been on the rails for an adventure, the hooks are pretty deep. You have been following orders, getting paid, killing monsters...

Now the gm throws you for a loop. You find out that the people you've been working for have been doing something REALLY BAD.

The attacks you have been defending against have been completely warranted. However, the people you have been defending include innocent people. Assume mid level heroic characters, what would you do?

The enemy wants to destroy an entire nations way of life. The way of life is fueled by secret suffering. The innocent people who rely on these will be slaughtered en masse if it continues, but if they are left alone untold millions will continue to suffer.

Is it objectively evil? (because D&D universe have an objective notion of good and evil)
Or is it just "morally wrong for some morals"?

Because for the moment, the scenario you described could be "a nation of vegan attack a nation of meat-eaters" or its D&D counterpart "tree-friendly elves attack industry-friendly humans"

Assuming it is dependent on the moral:

There is probably no "objectively good" short term solution. The main objective of the PCs would probably be to get rid of extremist in both sides. So that (1) the act made by the defenders no longer directly affect other nations (2) the other nations no longer try to get rid of the "amoral" defending nation.
Then, the goal would be to setup trade and diplomatic relations, so that long-term wise, the moral standards of the different kingdoms move nearer from each others.

Assuming it is objectively evil:

Well, get rid of it.
My objective as a group of PC would be to trade to the "enemy" our cooperation (which they probably value, since we're the reason why they can't win) against shelter and new life to the civil of our kingdom.
Yes, it means letting dye a full culture, but that's a culture which probably send all their soul to hell, and the innocent citizens being eternally tortured in hell for being born in an "evil society" is probably even worse than them dying in the war.

[Calthropstu]

Is it objectively evil? (because D&D universe have an objective notion of good and evil)
Or is it just "morally wrong for some morals"?

Because for the moment, the scenario you described could be "a nation of vegan attack a nation of meat-eaters" or its D&D counterpart "tree-friendly elves attack industry-friendly humans"

Assuming it is dependent on the moral:

There is probably no "objectively good" short term solution. The main objective of the PCs would probably be to get rid of extremist in both sides. So that (1) the act made by the defenders no longer directly affect other nations (2) the other nations no longer try to get rid of the "amoral" defending nation.
Then, the goal would be to setup trade and diplomatic relations, so that long-term wise, the moral standards of the different kingdoms move nearer from each others.

Assuming it is objectively evil:

Well, get rid of it.
My objective as a group of PC would be to trade to the "enemy" our cooperation (which they probably value, since we're the reason why they can't win) against shelter and new life to the civil of our kingdom.
Yes, it means letting dye a full culture, but that's a culture which probably send all their soul to hell, and the innocent citizens being eternally tortured in hell for being born in an "evil society" is probably even worse than them dying in the war.

In my current campaign, I am using elementals who are attacking because millions of their souls are being bound to magic items.
In my next campaign it is going to be a barbarian type tribal society against a roman style society zero both of which are guilty of war crimes against the other.

My next one was, in fact, hippie elves vs encroaching humans.

[MoiMagnus]

In my current campaign, I am using elementals who are attacking because millions of their souls are being bound to magic items.
In my next campaign it is going to be a barbarian type tribal society against a roman style society zero both of which are guilty of war crimes against the other.

My next one was, in fact, hippie elves vs encroaching humans.

How are your players reacting? I know a lot of players that play D&D as an escape from real world, so they don't want any "grey area" and like having a well-ordoned good vs evil battle (trahison and twist are possible, but someone is objectively right and someone is objectively wrong). While other players would be quite happy to make moral decisions like "it is the lesser evil, but a needed one".

The way I would act would probably change a LOT depending on which kind of table I'm in.
In the first situation, it would be an investigation to find "which side is the good side", and then manage to rally every "good person" of both side on the "good side".
In the second situation, assuming I play a loyal character, I would side with the defenders (even if they are doing bad stuff) unless my character feel really betrayed. Assuming I play a chaotic character, I would probably try to take over the defender's government by a coup.

(EDIT: this is assuming the remaining of the team is passive. I would not go against the will of the remaining of the team)