PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying The Cursed Innocents' Dilemma - Was this the "Right" thing to do?



Lemmy
2020-03-08, 04:32 PM
Hello, fellow play-grounders...

I have a moral dilemma for you. Generally, I don't bother with this kind of discussion, but what happened last night was... Questionable, to say the least.

So... After investigating the origin of werewolf raids on a nearby city, the party finds out that there are multiple werewolf villages around, all of different philosophies. The strongest one is the village of evil werewolves to the north.

We later found out that some of the werewolves who attacked the city weren't natural ones, but innocent people turned and controlled by some of the natural born lycanthropes, using some bizarre evil ritual. We killed the cultist, and as soon as we did, the infected people regained their mind... Thus creating the following situation:

- The infected are no longer under control of one of the natural werewolves, but will still turn into mindless beasts every full moon.
- A natural-born werewolf could still take control of them.
- There's no cure for lycanthropy (as far as the PCs know).

The party is then divided into two opinions:

A: Three of the part members say we should kill them. Women and children included. Because they are a risk to others and even if they live, they'll just be slaves to someone else anyway. Sparing them would be putting thousands of people at risk just for the benefit of about 40 villagers.

B: The other two party members are against it. They argue that these people are innocent and shouldn't be slain just because they are sick and/or vulnerable to mind control. And this is no different than killing people with low Will saves just because they can be dominated by an Evil wizard. And that we should at least try to find another solution before putting them to the sword.

So after a heated discussion, 2 out 5 members of the party decide that the best course of action is to kill the infected, another one agrees because he's CE and doesn't care about the people. The other 2 members resign themselves (mostly to avoid player conflict) and let them do what they want (although at least one of them got very close to starting PvP or at least leaving the party).

EDIT: Oh, right... Forgot to mention. None of the characters accepted payment for the mission. And at least one of them left the guild that sent them on the investigation that eventually led to dilemma above.

- - -

If it matters to you:

The alignment of the three in group A is CE (a psychotic goblin that doesn't really care), CG and... TN, I think? The character doesn't seem very interested in anything, TBH. The CG one has fought werewolves many times in the past, and has family living relatively close (a little less than 100 miles, I think).

The alignment of the 2 in group B is TN (leaning towards NG) and NG (I think). The TN guy is particularly sympathetic to lycanthropes due to past personal experiences.

- - -

So what do you think? What would you have done? What do you think each character should have done? Let me know!

Lord Raziere
2020-03-08, 05:00 PM
.....on the cure for lycanthropy bit, was this a case of failed knowledge rolls, the GM being uninformative, or the players not rolling for it? you said "as far the PCs know" what do you mean by that?

whats the location of these innocent infected? are they close enough to non-infected villages to make it within hours? assuming only the full moon, that gives them about 29 days of freedom and only one night of monstrousness, an entire month should be more than enough time to find some place to be out of the way of other people so that they cannot get to others within one night.

what magic is available?

I do not have enough information to make a judgement yet.

Rater202
2020-03-08, 05:02 PM
I'm pretty sure that slaughtering innocents, including children, even for the "greater good," is the kind of thing that makes you not good anymore.

As a GM I'd tell mister CG in the "kill them all" camp that if he goes through with it that his alignment will be changed to chaotic neutral and that it'll take him a lot to work his way back up.

The true neutral would likewise be warned that this singular act would make him count as "evil" going forward.

If either complained, I'd just tell them that if they want to be specific alignments they shouldn't act like a different one to such an extreme degree.

denthor
2020-03-08, 05:07 PM
First and foremost the CE player I tip my hat to. What a way to inspire an evil deed.

Now as to your problem. These people need spiritual support. Find a church of NG/CG grouping to help out. Have them supply a large sturdy basement cell(crypt) to employ these poor people. This gets out of the way, allowing the church some protection if attacked and provides for the groups well being. Eventually they can be cured with the proper spell format.

Lemmy
2020-03-08, 05:13 PM
.....on the cure for lycanthropy bit, was this a case of failed knowledge rolls, the GM being uninformative, or the players not rolling for it? you said "as far the PCs know" what do you mean by that? The PCs have no information. I don't know whether or not this is due to characterd reasons (the PCs don't have that knowledge) or to world reasons (there's no such cure in the world). That's still unclear at this poin in time. I suspect the GM just didn't expect anyone to suggest looking for a cure. He's new to GMing, so maybe he simply didn't think of that possibility. He's a great GM, though. Specially when it comes to narration and atmosphere building.


whats the location of these innocent infected? are they close enough to non-infected villages to make it within hours? assuming only the full moon, that gives them about 29 days of freedom and only one night of monstrousness, an entire month should be more than enough time to find some place to be out of the way of other people so that they cannot get to others within one night.They could reach a city, if they were left to their own devices, but the party knows of at least 2 werewolf villages that live far enough and have other containment measures to not pose a threat to other communities (one of them simply wants to be left alone. The other actively cares about the well-being of the city, because they stll have friends and family there).


what magic is available?This is a Pathfinder (1e) game with some homebrew. AFAICT, the world has all the magic expected from a high fantasy game, but the party is still only 3rd level (well... 4th now, we leveled up at the end of the session).

Silly Name
2020-03-08, 05:47 PM
They could reach a city, if they were left to their own devices, but the party knows of at least 2 werewolf villages that live far enough and have other containment measures to not pose a threat to other communities (one of them simply wants to be left alone. The other actively cares about the well-being of the city, because they stll have friends and family there).


I wanted to ask about this.

The "pragmatic" reasoning of Group A is undone by this bit of information that not only containment is possible and effective, but that they could have brought the infected NPCs to a place where this measure is available. There's no reason to not bring those NPCs to either village and entrust them to the care of the good werewolves.

It doesn't seems to me there's much room for arguing against taking this path of action (apart from the CE goblin being a murderous psychopath, but he'd want to kill the NPCs because it's "fun", not because he thinks it's morally correct), unless you want to kill the NPCs for whatever motive.

Lemmy
2020-03-08, 06:03 PM
I wanted to ask about this.

The "pragmatic" reasoning of Group A is undone by this bit of information that not only containment is possible and effective, but that they could have brought the infected NPCs to a place where this measure is available. There's no reason to not bring those NPCs to either village and entrust them to the care of the good werewolves.

It doesn't seems to me there's much room for arguing against taking this path of action (apart from the CE goblin being a murderous psychopath, but he'd want to kill the NPCs because it's "fun", not because he thinks it's morally correct), unless you want to kill the NPCs for whatever motive.
The argument of Group A is that they could still be controlled by evil werewolves (and that we knew the strongest lycanthrope village was the evil one). Also, we don't know how many mindless werewolves that village can hold. And, as far as the party knows, the lycanthropes, even the good ones, also do not know of a cure to lycanthropy and are even less likely to know of a cure to the mind-control aspect of the curse.

Group B argues that it doesn't matter. They should still be given a chance. And that the party should at very least look for alternative solutions before deciding to kill the prisoners.

Keltest
2020-03-08, 06:08 PM
Im with group B here. It would be one thing if they were a nobleman in the middle of a city or something and had no ability to survive on their own anyway, but these guys are basically capable of living by themselves away from people where theyre not an immediate threat. Executing them out of hand because they may potentially be taken control of later is wrong.

Quertus
2020-03-08, 06:10 PM
So what do you think? What would you have done?

Offer to turn the entire village into undead. Undead are immune to lycanthropy, right?

Silly Name
2020-03-08, 06:13 PM
Couldn't the mind-control issue be circumvented by having some of the good werewolves "take control" of the infected villagers? Or could they still be subdued by a more powerful (and probably evil) werewolf?

I feel inclined to agree with group B, because I see no redeeming quality in killing innocents without even trying to find an alternative solution. To make a comparison, if someone gets infected with a dangerous disease you don't kill them on the spot on the risk they might infect others: you quarantine them and try to find a cure.

Also, it seems to me that out of three members of group A, only the CG character seems to have an halfway-decent reason to be so adamant in their wish to kill the villagers: they're worried about their family and their previous encounters with lycanthropes may have left the character jaded and convinced the curse cannot be tolerated. The CE goblin sounds like he's just the stereotypical CE character who wants to kill every NPC no matter what, and the TN character sided with group A for reasons I'm unclear on. Is this character friends with the CG one?

Lemmy
2020-03-08, 06:28 PM
Couldn't the mind-control issue be circumvented by having some of the good werewolves "take control" of the infected villagers? Or could they still be subdued by a more powerful (and probably evil) werewolf?This solution was presented by the TN dude in Group B. The ones from Group A said it was still too risky. Because someone from the evil werewolf village could show up, kill the new alpha and take control of the villagers.


Also, it seems to me that out of three members of group A, only the CG character seems to have an halfway-decent reason to be so adamant in their wish to kill the villagers: they're worried about their family and their previous encounters with lycanthropes may have left the character jaded and convinced the curse cannot be tolerated. The CE goblin sounds like he's just the stereotypical CE character who wants to kill every NPC no matter what, and the TN character sided with group A for reasons I'm unclear on. Is this character friends with the CG one?All characters only met each other fairly recently... I'm not sure about the motivations of the TN character in group A (I'm avoiding to say which character was my own to try and keep the discussion as unbiased as possible, but I suppose it's obvious I'm not the TN one in Group A). I honestly don't know what's the character's "thing". She's a Halfling Witch, IIRC... Maybe the player wants to subvert the "halflings are everyone's friends" trope? I don't know. I've played many games with the player, and in general, he's a pretty good player... The character sometimes appears to legitimately care about the city, but hasn't really shown any passion or even much of an interest in anything so far (that I could tell, anyway. Maybe I missed some subtlety at some point).

Keltest
2020-03-08, 06:40 PM
As far as CE guy goes, "theyre potentially very dangerous and killing them guarantees minimal casualties when it inevitably falls to violence" is a legitimate reason to motivate an evil character to violence. Possibly even a neutral character. Its not a great reason, mind you, but its better than "im a psychopath who actively delights in causing harm to others" by a significant margin.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-08, 08:12 PM
The PCs have no information. I don't know whether or not this is due to characterd reasons (the PCs don't have that knowledge) or to world reasons (there's no such cure in the world). That's still unclear at this poin in time. I suspect the GM just didn't expect anyone to suggest looking for a cure. He's new to GMing, so maybe he simply didn't think of that possibility. He's a great GM, though. Specially when it comes to narration and atmosphere building.

They could reach a city, if they were left to their own devices, but the party knows of at least 2 werewolf villages that live far enough and have other containment measures to not pose a threat to other communities (one of them simply wants to be left alone. The other actively cares about the well-being of the city, because they stll have friends and family there).

This is a Pathfinder (1e) game with some homebrew. AFAICT, the world has all the magic expected from a high fantasy game, but the party is still only 3rd level (well... 4th now, we leveled up at the end of the session).


1. Okay, so you don't even know whether they rolled knowledge (arcana)? did they have no wizard expert who could tell them that they could go to? this is important you need to figure this out, because we don't know if the players didn't bother to consider this, whether the GM didn't bother to consider this, or whether they are just roleplaying out ignorance, the nature of the lack of knowledge is just as important as not knowing because "these certain people don't know" is different from "wizards have studied this extensively and have yet to find a cure that works"

2. so what makes this community different that sending them off to these two other villages would not work? are they more than 29 days away?

3. okay, do they have access to any of this magic? what are their tools available?


This solution was presented by the TN dude in Group B. The ones from Group A said it was still too risky. Because someone from the evil werewolf village could show up, kill the new alpha and take control of the villagers.

Then kill the evil werewolf village, this is DnD your allowed to be that kill happy when it comes to evil.

Segev
2020-03-08, 08:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that slaughtering innocents, including children, even for the "greater good," is the kind of thing that makes you not good anymore.

As a GM I'd tell mister CG in the "kill them all" camp that if he goes through with it that his alignment will be changed to chaotic neutral and that it'll take him a lot to work his way back up.

The true neutral would likewise be warned that this singular act would make him count as "evil" going forward.

If either complained, I'd just tell them that if they want to be specific alignments they shouldn't act like a different one to such an extreme degree.

I sort-of agree. The CG guy is probably hit hard enough to be CN, but the TN guy's reasoning is actually right in line with Neutral on the moral axis. He's not advocating murder for selfish reasons. He's advocating it for "the greater good." And in this case, is (at least as far as he's aware) right about the risks to other innocents.

Now, I'm not saying it's not an evil act. I am saying that it's the kind of evil act that Neutral people can get up to, because being Neutral means you do sometimes perform evil acts for various reasons.

As to the "right thing to do," I would have suggested looking for any other solution first. The villages of non-evil werewolves with containment procedures would have been ideal. Depending on party level, the wizard taking Leadership and casting dominate monster or geas on them would be a good idea, too. He can give them orders to act according to their own wills, and now his Charisma check opposes any attempts by evil lycanthropes to control them.

Lemmy
2020-03-08, 09:30 PM
1. Okay, so you don't even know whether they rolled knowledge (arcana)? did they have no wizard expert who could tell them that they could go to?We made knowledge checks. No character knew of any possible cure. Whether that's because no one mad a high enough check or because thers no cure is unclear.


2. so what makes this community different that sending them off to these two other villages would not work? are they more than 29 days away?Group A was afraid that an evil werewolf would could take control of the villagers. The other infected still become beasts, but can't be mind-controlled.


3. okay, do they have access to any of this magic? what are their tools available?Not by themselves. I suppose they could buy/hire someone to do it if they somehow gathered enough gold.


Then kill the evil werewolf village, this is DnD your allowed to be that kill happy when it comes to evil.It was suggested. But the PCs weren't sure they could slay the evil werewolf village. It's the largest and most fortified lycanthrope settlement around... And the OCs were just at 3rd level.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-08, 09:42 PM
Group A was afraid that an evil werewolf would could take control of the villagers. The other infected still become beasts, but can't be mind-controlled.


Well if they're really worried about the and can't kill all the werewolves then protect them and make sure no evil werewolf comes to try, its either that or transport them to other village keep the act they can be controlled quiet to anyone outside the good werewolf village and hope that doesn't happen or that non-mind controllable ones can take care of it, because a hypothetical scenario you can't control like that isn't an excuse to just kill innocents. not all risks are preventable unfortunately.

Theoboldi
2020-03-09, 01:29 AM
It was suggested. But the PCs weren't sure they could slay the evil werewolf village. It's the largest and most fortified lycanthrope settlement around... And the OCs were just at 3rd level.

But they are confident that they can kill the roughly 40 innocent werewolves on their own? That doesn't quite add up for me, unless the GM decided that for some reason these innocent lycanthropes didn't have the full powers of normal werewolves.

Lemmy
2020-03-09, 02:15 AM
But they are confident that they can kill the roughly 40 innocent werewolves on their own? That doesn't quite add up for me, unless the GM decided that for some reason these innocent lycanthropes didn't have the full powers of normal werewolves.
At this point, they were in human form.

Theoboldi
2020-03-09, 03:26 AM
At this point, they were in human form.

Hrm. Upon checking, the Pathfinder version of werewolves is pretty unimpressive when in human form. Didn't know so many abilities were locked behind the transformation.

Either way, arguing even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I'm surprised you were able to just slaughter a good 40 commoners without any escaping or them driving you off, especially given this was after your fight with the big bad cultist. Even beyond that, how are you gonna avoid the repurcussions of essentially murdering an entire village? Not just legally, but from their friends and families? That's the kind of stuff that will come back to bite you worse than letting a bunch of reclusive werewolves live who could probably find shelter with the non-evil villages.

Also, come to think of it, wouldn't it have been a good to reinforce those good werewolf villages with more people? Surely they have natural lycanthropes of their own who can control them and stop them from doing evil things. That's still ethically very dodgy, but it's not quite killing a whole village.

I mean, morally I agree with the other posters that it's wrong, but even without that aspect I cannot see this being a good idea.

Quertus
2020-03-09, 07:31 AM
Also, come to think of it, wouldn't it have been a good to reinforce those good werewolf villages with more people? Surely they have natural lycanthropes of their own who can control them and stop them from doing evil things.

This is, of course, the best answer… unless, of course, that was the evil plan all along: to have controllable, expendable fodder invited into the good villages, where the evil werewolves take control of them to destroy their opposition.

(EDIT: or the "good" villages are a lie (like the cake))

Pleh
2020-03-09, 08:02 AM
Given the facts, seems Team B had the moral high ground.

Escort the villagers to the Good aligned tribes of Werewolves, then enlist the tribe's help, take maybe 3 or 4 good aligned, adventure worthy werewolves to help track and fight the evil werewolves, they can take the front lines as they can't contract lycanthropy twice.

You do the work to eradicate the evil tribes, bringing security back to the region.

If the mission fails, you still took the optimal path. Heroes do the right thing, even when it seems crazy.

Rater202
2020-03-09, 10:21 AM
“Each of you, for himself or herself, by himself or herself, and on his or her own responsibility, must speak. It is a solemn and weighty responsibility and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government or politician. Each must decide for himself or herself alone what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man, to decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor. It is traitorous both against yourself and your country.
Let men label you as they may, if you alone of all the nation decide one way, and that way be the right way by your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country, hold up your head for you have nothing to be ashamed of.
It doesn’t matter what the press says. It doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. It doesnn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. Republics are founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe in. no matter the odds or consequences.
When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move. Your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world:
“No, you move.”
― Mark Twain

The correct thing to do would be for group B to start escorting the cursed innocents t the good village whether group A liked it or not and told them to go loudly fornicate themselves if they complained.

"Yeah, this isn't a democracy, we're more good than evil so we're doing the right thing, not the lazy thing."

Becuase from what I'm seeing, it seems like group A is just being lazy and is using pragmatism to justify it.

Kelb_Panthera
2020-03-10, 12:04 AM
So, just putting this point forward:

Attempting to follow through on group A's plan could easily end in TPK. The full moon isn't the only transformation trigger. Anytime they're injured they may transform and the whole thing could turn into a massive cluster-**** in one heck of a hurry. Nevermind them scattering to the four winds when the chopping starts. A pragmatic plan is only pragmatic if you can actually follow through on it. The "kill 'em all" plan isn't pragmatic, whatever justifications one may put forward, unless the villagers all agree to it too. I'd place all the wealth of a 20th level wizard on a bet against them simply laying down and dying to the last man.

Then there's the moral dimension. There's absolutely -no- valid argument for Group A's plan. "They pose a risk to others" is an argument that can be taken to its logical extreme to justify killing anyone at any time. A child whose only functional limb is an arm can still stick a knife in a sleeping man's throat. Everyone poses some risk to everyone else so saying that it's a reason to kill them is a defacto declaration that the risk they pose is too great in your subjective opinion. Who are you to be the one to make that call? I'd bet the villagers don't see it that way.

You have no moral right to kill anyone that's not actively trying to kill you or someone else and even the latter can be shakey depending on circumstance.

Group B is in the right no matter how you look at this, IMO.

It depends on motivation. If the group on the whole is trying to end the lycanthrope threat with the minimal bloodshed that marks a crusade waged by good characters, there's nothing further to do with these villagers but there are still evil lycanthropes that need to be either shown the light or shown the blade. Get on it.

Lord Torath
2020-03-10, 12:25 PM
Because someone from the evil werewolf village could show up, kill the new alpha and take control of the villagers.An evil spectre could show up, kill all the infected villagers, raise them as spectres under its control, and start a rampage! The only safe thing to do is to kill them all. Or, in the words of Sunna (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html), "Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

That is the kind of safety we can do without. Yes, another evil werewolf could dominate them. Or a necromancer could show up and zombify them. Or an evil warlord could show up and press-gang them into his army (and get a really fun surprise on the next full moon!). The entire population of the world could be turned into the material components for an evil bad guy's super evil plan. Doesn't mean you raze the population to stop him.

You know, an evil psionicist could dominate your teammates! According to the A-Team, the only safe course of action is for you to kill them before they can be dominated! Ignore any feeble arguments that there are no such evil psionicists in the area. There could be! You don't know! Better safe than sorry, right?

TL/DR: No, that was not the "Right" thing to do. There were other options available that would have prevented the senseless slaughter of innocents.

Lemmy
2020-03-10, 05:02 PM
Hi, everyone... Thanks for your input.

So, full disclosure: I was playing the TN character in Group B (the character who was sympathetic to werewolves for personal reasons, although that wasn't the reason he was against the deed).

Like I said, I don't usually bother with alignment discussion and moral dilemmas in RPGs, but this time I found it a bit disturbing how quickly and easily other players resorted to "Let's kll them all just in case, for the greater good".

I'm not sure, but I suspect two of the players in Group A were just not very interested in the werewolf plot-line and wanted to end it. But even so, defending the slaughter of innocents as not only necessary, but also as the best alternative and first course of action... was somewhat horrifying.

In the end, me and the other player in Group B accepted the group's decision for metagame reasons (I didn't want to start PvP, although that's probably what I should have done). I also didn't want to extend the situation even further because I was honestly getting a bit angry and felt like if the discussion went on, I might lose my patience (which is saying something, as I'm really cool-headed and thick-skinned. It's surprisingly difficult to actually get me angry).

I'm still bothered by what happened. It actually kinda surprises me that an RPG session could still have this much impact on me. Then again, I'm the guy who always has a hard time killing innocent NPCs even in computer games.

Anyway, once again, thanks for your input. It's good to know I'm not the only one who thought that course of action was downright evil.

King of Nowhere
2020-03-10, 09:27 PM
knowing that there are villages of werewolves that live peacefully, then this mostly invalidate the "kill them all" rationale.

but if that hadn't been an option, i could definitely understand the rationale, and i can support it if the circumstances are extreme enough.

was the "those villages live in peace" argument brought up during the discussion? if so, how was it countered?


I'm pretty sure that slaughtering innocents, including children, even for the "greater good," is the kind of thing that makes you not good anymore.

As a GM I'd tell mister CG in the "kill them all" camp that if he goes through with it that his alignment will be changed to chaotic neutral and that it'll take him a lot to work his way back up.

The true neutral would likewise be warned that this singular act would make him count as "evil" going forward.

If either complained, I'd just tell them that if they want to be specific alignments they shouldn't act like a different one to such an extreme degree.

I disagree with this approach. the moment you start discussing the morality of the option, it becomes a philosophical issue. and this is just a threat to weave a DM hammer to make the players agree with you on a philosophical dilemma. It's basically argomentum ad baculum. And if you can't come up with better reasons for why it is wrong than "because i'll change your alignment", perhaps they have a point.

Also, I don't like selctive responsibility. if one is responsible for killing innocent people cursed as werewolves, then one is equally responsible if he spares them and they go on a killing spree.

Finally, I also believe that basing a decision of that kind on "what would let me keep my good alignment" is authomatically an evil action, regardless of choice or outcome. A good alignment is about caring for others, an evil alignment is willing to hurt others for self gain. If one say "I don't care about the consequences in the long run [no concern for others], this action will let me keep my good alignment [personal gain]", that's evil.
In fact, if I had a paladin in a difficult dilemma, I would never make the paladin fall for taking what he genuinely believes the best choice. but i would always demote a paladin who started to wonder how the keep his class privileges active and his cape shiny.
Answers that are not egoistic instead (for example "we don't know a cure, but we don't know everything. and there's good and smart people to care for them. I'm sure they can find some solutions") are perfectly accepted. Let me reinstate for clarity: I'm not arguing against the specific choice or the specific scenario. I'm arguing against making moral choices based on the fact that your alignment may change.

Keltest
2020-03-10, 10:41 PM
knowing that there are villages of werewolves that live peacefully, then this mostly invalidate the "kill them all" rationale.

but if that hadn't been an option, i could definitely understand the rationale, and i can support it if the circumstances are extreme enough.

was the "those villages live in peace" argument brought up during the discussion? if so, how was it countered?



I disagree with this approach. the moment you start discussing the morality of the option, it becomes a philosophical issue. and this is just a threat to weave a DM hammer to make the players agree with you on a philosophical dilemma. It's basically argomentum ad baculum. And if you can't come up with better reasons for why it is wrong than "because i'll change your alignment", perhaps they have a point.

Also, I don't like selctive responsibility. if one is responsible for killing innocent people cursed as werewolves, then one is equally responsible if he spares them and they go on a killing spree.

Finally, I also believe that basing a decision of that kind on "what would let me keep my good alignment" is authomatically an evil action, regardless of choice or outcome. A good alignment is about caring for others, an evil alignment is willing to hurt others for self gain. If one say "I don't care about the consequences in the long run [no concern for others], this action will let me keep my good alignment [personal gain]", that's evil.
In fact, if I had a paladin in a difficult dilemma, I would never make the paladin fall for taking what he genuinely believes the best choice. but i would always demote a paladin who started to wonder how the keep his class privileges active and his cape shiny.
Answers that are not egoistic instead (for example "we don't know a cure, but we don't know everything. and there's good and smart people to care for them. I'm sure they can find some solutions") are perfectly accepted. Let me reinstate for clarity: I'm not arguing against the specific choice or the specific scenario. I'm arguing against making moral choices based on the fact that your alignment may change.

That sounds like youre conflating out of game player rationale with in-character roleplaying rationale. Having a player ask "what would a good aligned character do" is a reasonable direction for their thoughts to go in. Punishing a player for not caring about the NPCs as if they were real people is... wrong.

Rater202
2020-03-10, 11:56 PM
The RAW for these games is that Good and Evil are rigidly defined cosmic forces that one is aligned to and that committing acts aligned to one when not aligned to it moves you closer to it.

Part of a GM's job is enforcing the rules.

Premeditated murder of an innocent for personal benefit(which includes becuase it's easier or more pragmatic than some alternative) is an act og great evil

I would thus be carrying out a premeditated conspiracy to slaughter in cold blood an entire village of innocents who have already been victimized becuase it's easier to less risky than helping them, is an extremely evil act and one that I would interpret as severe enough to move one a step closer to Evil.

If I were the GM of this party, informing the players that their characters will be treated as one being one step closer towards evil for doing it is your standard "Are you sure? There will be consequences" thing that Good GMs do. A particularly leniently example, even, since I'd be telling them exactly what the consequences are.

hat particular post had nothing to do with philosophical drama or railroading the players and everything to do with playing the game as it was written.

"Commit great Evil and you'll become Evil" is one of the rules of the game.

Quertus
2020-03-12, 09:34 PM
“Each of you, for himself or herself, by himself or herself, and on his or her own responsibility, must speak. It is a solemn and weighty responsibility and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government or politician. Each must decide for himself or herself alone what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man, to decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor. It is traitorous both against yourself and your country.
Let men label you as they may, if you alone of all the nation decide one way, and that way be the right way by your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country, hold up your head for you have nothing to be ashamed of.
It doesn’t matter what the press says. It doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. It doesnn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. Republics are founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe in. no matter the odds or consequences.
When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move. Your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world:
“No, you move.”
― Mark Twain


I disagree with this approach. the moment you start discussing the morality of the option, it becomes a philosophical issue. and this is just a threat to weave a DM hammer to make the players agree with you on a philosophical dilemma. It's basically argomentum ad baculum. And if you can't come up with better reasons for why it is wrong than "because i'll change your alignment", perhaps they have a point.

Also, I don't like selctive responsibility. if one is responsible for killing innocent people cursed as werewolves, then one is equally responsible if he spares them and they go on a killing spree.

Finally, I also believe that basing a decision of that kind on "what would let me keep my good alignment" is authomatically an evil action, regardless of choice or outcome. A good alignment is about caring for others, an evil alignment is willing to hurt others for self gain. If one say "I don't care about the consequences in the long run [no concern for others], this action will let me keep my good alignment [personal gain]", that's evil.
In fact, if I had a paladin in a difficult dilemma, I would never make the paladin fall for taking what he genuinely believes the best choice. but i would always demote a paladin who started to wonder how the keep his class privileges active and his cape shiny.
Answers that are not egoistic instead (for example "we don't know a cure, but we don't know everything. and there's good and smart people to care for them. I'm sure they can find some solutions") are perfectly accepted. Let me reinstate for clarity: I'm not arguing against the specific choice or the specific scenario. I'm arguing against making moral choices based on the fact that your alignment may change.

Posts like these are among the reasons why the playground is the best forum I've seen! :smallbiggrin:


The RAW for these games is that Good and Evil are rigidly defined cosmic forces that one is aligned to and that committing acts aligned to one when not aligned to it moves you closer to it.

Part of a GM's job is enforcing the rules.

Premeditated murder of an innocent for personal benefit(which includes becuase it's easier or more pragmatic than some alternative) is an act og great evil

I would thus be carrying out a premeditated conspiracy to slaughter in cold blood an entire village of innocents who have already been victimized becuase it's easier to less risky than helping them, is an extremely evil act and one that I would interpret as severe enough to move one a step closer to Evil.

If I were the GM of this party, informing the players that their characters will be treated as one being one step closer towards evil for doing it is your standard "Are you sure? There will be consequences" thing that Good GMs do. A particularly leniently example, even, since I'd be telling them exactly what the consequences are.

hat particular post had nothing to do with philosophical drama or railroading the players and everything to do with playing the game as it was written.

"Commit great Evil and you'll become Evil" is one of the rules of the game.

And this is why I prefer to start out as a great Evil, and see if the game has my character move towards good or not. That's a much more interesting journey (or a much more interesting lack thereof).


The correct thing to do would be for group B to start escorting the cursed innocents t the good village

Only seemingly. As I've said, that could have been the evil werewolves' plan all along. If you ask me, the correct thing to do is to look at the problem carefully, so that you can see what the correct thing to do is.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-12, 10:32 PM
Only seemingly. As I've said, that could have been the evil werewolves' plan all along. If you ask me, the correct thing to do is to look at the problem carefully, so that you can see what the correct thing to do is.

There is scarce more carefulness or correctness you can acquire than sending them to that innocent werewolf village. unless you propose for these people to live out in the wild hunting and potentially encountering random dangers in a DnD fantasy wilderness- which if they don't have hunting and survival skills is a slow death sentence anyways, as well as the risk of them just scattering to go wherever they want anyways- there is little else you can do than accept the risk.

the alternative is sending them to city where there are no werewolves which is different problem: if people find out, there is no one there that understands their plight and will not hesitate to kill them anyways. furthermore the city will remember the PC bringing them there and might assume that the PCs are apart of the evil werewolf village or something and hunt them for bringing in werewolves to their city. the evil werewolves could also infiltrate the city, mind control the refugees then use the strife this causes to pin the blame on the innocent werewolves, thus killing both the refugees and the good werewolf village while potentially causing sabotage to the city, which is even worse than the good werewolf village being given a chance. all the alternatives seem worse than just bringing them to that good werewolf village.

Lvl45DM!
2020-03-12, 11:52 PM
knowing that there are villages of werewolves that live peacefully, then this mostly invalidate the "kill them all" rationale.

but if that hadn't been an option, i could definitely understand the rationale, and i can support it if the circumstances are extreme enough.

was the "those villages live in peace" argument brought up during the discussion? if so, how was it countered?



I disagree with this approach. the moment you start discussing the morality of the option, it becomes a philosophical issue. and this is just a threat to weave a DM hammer to make the players agree with you on a philosophical dilemma. It's basically argomentum ad baculum. And if you can't come up with better reasons for why it is wrong than "because i'll change your alignment", perhaps they have a point.

Also, I don't like selctive responsibility. if one is responsible for killing innocent people cursed as werewolves, then one is equally responsible if he spares them and they go on a killing spree.

Finally, I also believe that basing a decision of that kind on "what would let me keep my good alignment" is authomatically an evil action, regardless of choice or outcome. A good alignment is about caring for others, an evil alignment is willing to hurt others for self gain. If one say "I don't care about the consequences in the long run [no concern for others], this action will let me keep my good alignment [personal gain]", that's evil.
In fact, if I had a paladin in a difficult dilemma, I would never make the paladin fall for taking what he genuinely believes the best choice. but i would always demote a paladin who started to wonder how the keep his class privileges active and his cape shiny.
Answers that are not egoistic instead (for example "we don't know a cure, but we don't know everything. and there's good and smart people to care for them. I'm sure they can find some solutions") are perfectly accepted. Let me reinstate for clarity: I'm not arguing against the specific choice or the specific scenario. I'm arguing against making moral choices based on the fact that your alignment may change.

The issue with this train of thought is that a good alignment isnt just a possession thats nice to have. Its the right way to behave. Its like asking "what gets me into heaven?" The basic answer to that is "good deeds". Regardless of your concern about your afterlife you're asking "Which deed here is the good one". Both questions mean the same thing, but one puts it into a specific context.
Paladins have codes and alignments for a reason, its their structured systemic approach to being good. Asking "How do I stay a paladin" isnt evil or selfish. Its appealing to an external code you signed up to because its supposed to make the world a better place when you follow it.

Kyberwulf
2020-03-13, 01:21 AM
My only problem with "cursed innocents" is that usually it's not really used in that way. Lycanthropes aren't cursed innocents. Yes, they were "innocent" before, and maybe when they were first "cursed they might have been "innocent". I don't know how long it's been since they have been cursed, but I doubt they have been squeaky clean in the interim. So they are no longer innocent. If there was a cure and it saved them from being "cursed" they are still no longer innocent.

The idea of a cursed innocent is something like, sleeping beauty... or Fiona... A curse that effect only the cursed person. I mean try to argue the morality of putting sleeping beauty to the sword while she was sleeping. Once the curse acts on the person, and it effects other people, then the person isn't innocent anymore.

This whole line of questioning seems like a "gotcha" kind of thing, were no matter what you say someone is going to introduce something that will make your answer just seem wrong. I mean from the whole idea that there is a "good" werewolf village somewhere seems kind of convenient. Where were they when the evil ones were running amok? Why didn't they come down to intervene? Whose to say that they want to watch over these new werewolves?

The idea that damaging them, and they might change into werewolves so don't do it... isn't an argument either, or rather its a poor one. Who is to say that they don't get thirsty one night, come downstairs...step on a lego and wolf out... killing bunch of randos one night?

The idea of killing everyone because a Necromancer might come by and wraith everyone is laughable too. I mean first off, this isn't the same. These werewolves are already known to be controllable by something else without much effort. The whole Necromancer thing still requires someone to come in and establish control and do a bunch of other things.

the whole idea that they are "sick and vulnerable to mind control" is laughable. It would be one thing if they aren't harmful... it's entirely another thing if their "sickness" and vulnerability to mind control didn't come with claws ripping out their fingertips and large pointy teeetth gnashing out their baby molars that comes with a side order of irresistible bloodlust.

I mean I am all for housing and lodging the 40 man women and children who go into a deep sleep everyone month. Trying to find a cure for them... .but

The idea of of just casually trying to come up with a way to house 40 BESTIAL SAVAGES that can rip apart walls and tear through flesh with the ease of a burrito? I mean you imagine that conversation. " Oh jeeze... one got out and mauled someone." "Who did it get?.... Karen? ...aw well no one liked her anyway."

Also the idea that a Medieval village or town has the capacity to deal with that many monsters is ... ludicrous.

Lvl45DM!
2020-03-13, 05:29 AM
My only problem with "cursed innocents" is that usually it's not really used in that way. Lycanthropes aren't cursed innocents. Yes, they were "innocent" before, and maybe when they were first "cursed they might have been "innocent". I don't know how long it's been since they have been cursed, but I doubt they have been squeaky clean in the interim. So they are no longer innocent. If there was a cure and it saved them from being "cursed" they are still no longer innocent.

The idea of a cursed innocent is something like, sleeping beauty... or Fiona... A curse that effect only the cursed person. I mean try to argue the morality of putting sleeping beauty to the sword while she was sleeping. Once the curse acts on the person, and it effects other people, then the person isn't innocent anymore.

This whole line of questioning seems like a "gotcha" kind of thing, were no matter what you say someone is going to introduce something that will make your answer just seem wrong. I mean from the whole idea that there is a "good" werewolf village somewhere seems kind of convenient. Where were they when the evil ones were running amok? Why didn't they come down to intervene? Whose to say that they want to watch over these new werewolves?

The idea that damaging them, and they might change into werewolves so don't do it... isn't an argument either, or rather its a poor one. Who is to say that they don't get thirsty one night, come downstairs...step on a lego and wolf out... killing bunch of randos one night?

The idea of killing everyone because a Necromancer might come by and wraith everyone is laughable too. I mean first off, this isn't the same. These werewolves are already known to be controllable by something else without much effort. The whole Necromancer thing still requires someone to come in and establish control and do a bunch of other things.

the whole idea that they are "sick and vulnerable to mind control" is laughable. It would be one thing if they aren't harmful... it's entirely another thing if their "sickness" and vulnerability to mind control didn't come with claws ripping out their fingertips and large pointy teeetth gnashing out their baby molars that comes with a side order of irresistible bloodlust.

I mean I am all for housing and lodging the 40 man women and children who go into a deep sleep everyone month. Trying to find a cure for them... .but

The idea of of just casually trying to come up with a way to house 40 BESTIAL SAVAGES that can rip apart walls and tear through flesh with the ease of a burrito? I mean you imagine that conversation. " Oh jeeze... one got out and mauled someone." "Who did it get?.... Karen? ...aw well no one liked her anyway."

Also the idea that a Medieval village or town has the capacity to deal with that many monsters is ... ludicrous.

I think youre going more off horror movie werewolves than what was actually described in the scenario.

Quertus
2020-03-13, 05:53 AM
There is scarce more carefulness or correctness you can acquire than sending them to that innocent werewolf village. unless you propose for these people to live out in the wild hunting and potentially encountering random dangers in a DnD fantasy wilderness- which if they don't have hunting and survival skills is a slow death sentence anyways, as well as the risk of them just scattering to go wherever they want anyways- there is little else you can do than accept the risk.

the alternative is sending them to city where there are no werewolves which is different problem: if people find out, there is no one there that understands their plight and will not hesitate to kill them anyways. furthermore the city will remember the PC bringing them there and might assume that the PCs are apart of the evil werewolf village or something and hunt them for bringing in werewolves to their city. the evil werewolves could also infiltrate the city, mind control the refugees then use the strife this causes to pin the blame on the innocent werewolves, thus killing both the refugees and the good werewolf village while potentially causing sabotage to the city, which is even worse than the good werewolf village being given a chance. all the alternatives seem worse than just bringing them to that good werewolf village.

If you really don't get the concept of not taking things at face value, and actually investigating, then I'm certainly not qualified to explain it to you. However, in case you just don't understand what I meant when I suggested looking into the problem, allow me to list a few alternatives that would qualify, that aren't covered by your "unless" / "the alternative":

Sense Motive on the "good" village, especially when (overtly and/or subtly) probing questions are asked.

Scouting the "good" village, to look for evidence that this was their plan, all along.

Sense Motive on the evil village, especially when (overtly and/or subtly) probing questions are asked. (Note: this is not exactly conducive to the health of level 3 PCs - I suggest doing so only with captives after taking up with the "good" villages.)

Scouting the evil village, to look for evidence that this was their plan, all along.

And this is just using the actors given, and 2 muggle skills. There are many more options for ways to more carefully evaluate the scenario for evidence that the "good" werewolf villagers are in cahoots with the evil masterminds (most of them simultaneously more subtle and (subsequently) safer).

Evaluating whether sending the werewolves into the good village was a "Trojan horse" part of an evil master plan is much more difficult to investigate or explain, so, if you don't get the idea of more basic investigation, there's really no point in me even trying to explain.


I mean from the whole idea that there is a "good" werewolf village somewhere seems kind of convenient. Where were they when the evil ones were running amok? Why didn't they come down to intervene? Whose to say that they want to watch over these new werewolves?

Yes, a little too convenient. These "good" werewolves seem the perfect cover to convince adventurers to leave the werewolf breeding grounds peacefully.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-13, 07:42 AM
If you really don't get the concept of not taking things at face value, and actually investigating, then I'm certainly not qualified to explain it to you. However, in case you just don't understand what I meant when I suggested looking into the problem, allow me to list a few alternatives that would qualify, that aren't covered by your "unless" / "the alternative":

Sense Motive on the "good" village, especially when (overtly and/or subtly) probing questions are asked.

Scouting the "good" village, to look for evidence that this was their plan, all along.

Sense Motive on the evil village, especially when (overtly and/or subtly) probing questions are asked. (Note: this is not exactly conducive to the health of level 3 PCs - I suggest doing so only with captives after taking up with the "good" villages.)

Scouting the evil village, to look for evidence that this was their plan, all along.

And this is just using the actors given, and 2 muggle skills. There are many more options for ways to more carefully evaluate the scenario for evidence that the "good" werewolf villagers are in cahoots with the evil masterminds (most of them simultaneously more subtle and (subsequently) safer).

Evaluating whether sending the werewolves into the good village was a "Trojan horse" part of an evil master plan is much more difficult to investigate or explain, so, if you don't get the idea of more basic investigation, there's really no point in me even trying to explain.



Yes, a little too convenient. These "good" werewolves seem the perfect cover to convince adventurers to leave the werewolf breeding grounds peacefully.

Investigation takes time, days at least maybe weeks, what would you do with the villagers in the mean time? they still need somewhere to go, food to eat, shelter, your delaying a solution over some baseless metagaming paranoia and even if you were right about being suspicious of the good werewolves, what would you do THEN? you'd just be confirming that they have nowhere to go, so what would you actual solution be? while if your investigation turns up negative you've wasted time distrusting the GM over nothing because you suspected a gotcha that wasn't there.

sometimes an obvious good/bad dichotomy is just that: the GM being lazy with their worldbuilding and making the solutions simple so that the PC's don't get confused from having to remember more complex lore. if the PC's suspect a trap behind every town or smiling face they might as well just burn the entire campaign to the ground, its the stupidest kind of PC paranoia, when the Player-DM relationship is all about trust. what do you expect the barkeep to try and kill you in your sleep to?

Lemmy
2020-03-13, 09:39 AM
To clarify things a little bit more...

The lycanthropes in the region are divided into three main school of thoughts:

So... Every werewolf around was turned (or is the offspring of those who were turned) and had to leave the human city (of their own volition or forcibly). Many of them killed someone when they first turned, since during their first transformation, they can't yet control themselves and become mindless beasts. Over the years, the human city hired an elite military force specialized in fighting lycanthropes. We don't know what causes the lycanthroly here, but it seems to happen to someone every few months... It was implied a few times that there's a curse on the ground where the city was built. There is no indication of other lycanthropes sneaking in to turn the inhabitants.

- The "good" ones. Who still care about their friends and family in the city. We have much reason to believe them, as we witnessed these werewolves actively defend the city from invaders. We also spent 2 days in their village. They seem to be legitimately peaceful people trying to get on with their lives.

- The "neutral" ones. Who we didn't encounter at all. But multiple sources told us they don't really care one way or another about human society. They live in remote locations and keep to themselves. Matches what we heard and saw so far.

- The "evil" ones. Who resent being expelled from the city (and/or believe themselves to be superior to normal humans). We have strong evidence they attacked the city multiple times and.joined forces with an evil cult that worships a lich. Apparently, it was said cult who taught them the ritual to mind-control infected werewolves (only those on whom the ritual is performed).

While we don't have indisputable proof of the motives and general alignment of each werewolf community, the evidence we uncovered and events we witnessed all seem to corroborate the descriptions given above.

I don't think the GM is going for a dark-n-edgy "they were all evil all along!" kind of twist, BTW. But as always, I might be wrong.

Jorren
2020-03-13, 06:48 PM
I am trying to picture in my head how this played out. I don't mean morally or philosophically. I mean the actual physical methods employed considering there are 40 people involved.

"Hey villagers huddle over here, we need to talk to you guys about what just happened. Oh don't worry about the flasks of oil and torches, they are just for our next job."

One PC to another PC: "Hey can you distract those parents over there so I can cut this 3-year old's throat?"

"We lead everyone back home and then ride ahead and set up an ambush to pick them off with arrows as they arrive."

I suppose the DM handwaved the party killing everyone but if he is not running 'that kind of edgy game' then it sounds like he either didn't think very carefully about what his players might do or really doesn't care. If so, you should probably discuss this sort of thing with him.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-13, 06:54 PM
See? good werewolf village is best choice. unless you want to go find the neutral ones for fear of the good ones bringing them along to fight evil, assuming they're stupid/incompetent enough to bring them like that knowing whats wrong with them. but generally I'd like to not assume that about other people, or to assume the GM wants me to roleplay as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist who is afraid of their own shadow being a mimic.

King of Nowhere
2020-03-13, 09:18 PM
That sounds like youre conflating out of game player rationale with in-character roleplaying rationale. Having a player ask "what would a good aligned character do" is a reasonable direction for their thoughts to go in. Punishing a player for not caring about the NPCs as if they were real people is... wrong.

well, when put like that, it seems more like metagaming than anything else. "what a good character will do" is not a good question, because there are a ton of different ways a good character may behave. you should instead wonder "what this specific character would do".

actually, there are a tons of threads on the specifics of why alignments are not straightjackets and you should not let them dictate your behavior. no need to derail this one.


The issue with this train of thought is that a good alignment isnt just a possession thats nice to have. Its the right way to behave. Its like asking "what gets me into heaven?" The basic answer to that is "good deeds". Regardless of your concern about your afterlife you're asking "Which deed here is the good one". Both questions mean the same thing, but one puts it into a specific context.


Actually, that reminds me of the "bet" argument one phylosopher used to argue that it's better to believe in god: "yes, we can't know for certain either way, but if there is god and you did believe in him you go to heaven, while if there was no god you didn't lose much. so it's better to believe".
to which the refutation was "perhaps god prefers an honest atheist to an hypocritical believer who only believes because he expects a reward."
which applies here too. If you wonder "how should i behave there to get into heaven", perhaps the powers that be decide that you should be punished for your selfish attitude.

Again, "good" means self-sacrificing to help others. If you care not for helping others but only for maximizing your chances to go to heaven, you are neutral at best.




Paladins have codes and alignments for a reason, its their structured systemic approach to being good. Asking "How do I stay a paladin" isnt evil or selfish. Its appealing to an external code you signed up to because its supposed to make the world a better place when you follow it.
this is a bit table-depending, because what the exact code of a paladin is depends on the specific DM and player. Though even I, who have a more flexible attitude than most, would never condone a paldin killing innocents to stop a curse unless all other options have been exhausted first. (if i was dm-ing, i'd also never put a paladin into a situation of having exhausted all the other options, because it would make for a very sad story. i'd let them find a solution of some sort).

but I think most people here will agree that the paladin code is not something to rules-lawyer, and that the core of it is "you step up and help people". So, a paladin saying "ok, we rescued your loved ones as you asked. oh, by the way, they are affected by a horrible curse that will turn them into bloodthirsty monsters on the next full moon. Well, goodbye. I have new and exciting quests to attend" would definitely NOT be doing his job.
Now, a paladin staying with the village to try and find a solution for the cursed is perfectly fine, and a paladin leaving to undergo on a quest to find a cure/find someone who can help is also perfectly fine.
I only disagree with the notion that a paladin can just leave the villagers to deal with those cursed werevolwes because doing so does not violate his code. that if you seem to have no good and pure options, you can just walk away to avoid staining yourself with difficult decisions. Leaving some innocents to deal with a threat that's well over their capacity to solve and that will probably kill them all in a few weeks just because you can't find a way to help them while keeping your hands clean is probably against the paladin code. Pretending that you actually kept your hands clean is hypocrisy of the worst kind.


To clarify things a little bit more...

The lycanthropes in the region are divided into three main school of thoughts:

So... Every werewolf around was turned (or is the offspring of those who were turned) and had to leave the human city (of their own volition or forcibly). Many of them killed someone when they first turned, since during their first transformation, they can't yet control themselves and become mindless beasts. Over the years, the human city hired an elite military force specialized in fighting lycanthropes. We don't know what causes the lycanthroly here, but it seems to happen to someone every few months... It was implied a few times that there's a curse on the ground where the city was built. There is no indication of other lycanthropes sneaking in to turn the inhabitants.

- The "good" ones. Who still care about their friends and family in the city. We have much reason to believe them, as we witnessed these werewolves actively defend the city from invaders. We also spent 2 days in their village. They seem to be legitimately peaceful people trying to get on with their lives.

- The "neutral" ones. Who we didn't encounter at all. But multiple sources told us they don't really care one way or another about human society. They live in remote locations and keep to themselves. Matches what we heard and saw so far.

- The "evil" ones. Who resent being expelled from the city (and/or believe themselves to be superior to normal humans). We have strong evidence they attacked the city multiple times and.joined forces with an evil cult that worships a lich. Apparently, it was said cult who taught them the ritual to mind-control infected werewolves (only those on whom the ritual is performed).

While we don't have indisputable proof of the motives and general alignment of each werewolf community, the evidence we uncovered and events we witnessed all seem to corroborate the descriptions given above.

I don't think the GM is going for a dark-n-edgy "they were all evil all along!" kind of twist, BTW. But as always, I might be wrong.

Ok, then let me reinstate my question, since it wasn't answered the first time:
why did nobody suggest to bring those cursed people to the good werewolves?

Quertus
2020-03-13, 09:26 PM
Investigation takes time, days at least maybe weeks, what would you do with the villagers in the mean time? they still need somewhere to go, food to eat, shelter, your delaying a solution over some baseless metagaming paranoia and even if you were right about being suspicious of the good werewolves, what would you do THEN? you'd just be confirming that they have nowhere to go, so what would you actual solution be? while if your investigation turns up negative you've wasted time distrusting the GM over nothing because you suspected a gotcha that wasn't there.

sometimes an obvious good/bad dichotomy is just that: the GM being lazy with their worldbuilding and making the solutions simple so that the PC's don't get confused from having to remember more complex lore. if the PC's suspect a trap behind every town or smiling face they might as well just burn the entire campaign to the ground, its the stupidest kind of PC paranoia, when the Player-DM relationship is all about trust. what do you expect the barkeep to try and kill you in your sleep to?


See? good werewolf village is best choice. unless you want to go find the neutral ones for fear of the good ones bringing them along to fight evil, assuming they're stupid/incompetent enough to bring them like that knowing whats wrong with them. but generally I'd like to not assume that about other people, or to assume the GM wants me to roleplay as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist who is afraid of their own shadow being a mimic.

You're likely too far away from understanding my point / my PoV for my words to reach you, but I'll make one last attempt, for everyone else reading the thread, at least, to describe what it is that I like in a game.

Firefly

Patience: We can deal. I’ll upload coordinates for a rendezvous point outside of town.

Mal: See you in the world. (Mal ends the transmission, followed by a long pause.) I believe that woman’s planning to shoot me again.

Jayne: She meant to pay you, she’d’a haggled you down some.

Wash: Just a little effort to hide it would’ve been…



Serenity

Zoë : So... trap?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Trap.
Zoë : We goin' in?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Ain't but a few hours out.
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn : Yeah, but... remember the part where it's a trap?
Kaylee Frye : But how can you be sure Inara don't just want to see you? Sometimes people have feelings. I'm referring here to people.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Y'all were watching I take it?
Kaylee Frye : Yes?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Did you see us fight?
Kaylee Frye : No.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Trap.



West Wing(?)

(Lots): …they're sleeping in each other's houses…

-----

I want a world worth Exploring. I want NPCs with character, and human motivations that can be read - not by skill checks, but through simple player skills and attention to detail. I want a GM that I can trust to portray those people, not mustache-twirling caricatures and/or incomprehensible garbage.

I don't want weeks of investigation.

I don't want to have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to enjoy the game.

I want the GM to present realistic NPCs, and I want my characters to experience the gamut of human experience.

-----

LR, I doubt you - or any who stand near your PoV - will ever travel far enough to actually see my PoV. But if you ever do, kudos - those who walk away from Omelas have a wide world to look forward to.

EDIT: note that I agree and have agreed that the "good" village is the "correct" choice if things are as… simple as they seem. I just believe that the "more correct" answer is to… hmmm… "trust, but verify", to go in with eyes open rather than blindly following the "best" plan. Because I don't know if the GM is awesome enough to be able to play a true Mastermind villain, and (over)confident enough in the party to actually do so.

Lemmy
2020-03-13, 09:34 PM
Ok, then let me reinstate my question, since it wasn't answered the first time:
why did nobody suggest to bring those cursed people to the good werewolves?I did. Repeatedly. Group A wouldn't cave in, though. They said "it was still to risky. the evil werewolves could attack and regain control of the cursed".

EDIT: Removed the green color because that bright neon-kryptonite appearance hurts my eyes.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-13, 10:00 PM
You're likely too far away from understanding my point / my PoV for my words to reach you, but I'll make one last attempt, for everyone else reading the thread, at least, to describe what it is that I like in a game.

Firefly

Patience: We can deal. I’ll upload coordinates for a rendezvous point outside of town.

Mal: See you in the world. (Mal ends the transmission, followed by a long pause.) I believe that woman’s planning to shoot me again.

Jayne: She meant to pay you, she’d’a haggled you down some.

Wash: Just a little effort to hide it would’ve been…



Serenity

Zoë : So... trap?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Trap.
Zoë : We goin' in?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Ain't but a few hours out.
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn : Yeah, but... remember the part where it's a trap?
Kaylee Frye : But how can you be sure Inara don't just want to see you? Sometimes people have feelings. I'm referring here to people.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Y'all were watching I take it?
Kaylee Frye : Yes?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Did you see us fight?
Kaylee Frye : No.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : Trap.



West Wing(?)

(Lots): …they're sleeping in each other's houses…

-----

I want a world worth Exploring. I want NPCs with character, and human motivations that can be read - not by skill checks, but through simple player skills and attention to detail. I want a GM that I can trust to portray those people, not mustache-twirling caricatures and/or incomprehensible garbage.

I don't want weeks of investigation.

I don't want to have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to enjoy the game.

I want the GM to present realistic NPCs, and I want my characters to experience the gamut of human experience.

-----

LR, I doubt you - or any who stand near your PoV - will ever travel far enough to actually see my PoV. But if you ever do, kudos - those who walk away from Omelas have a wide world to look forward to.

EDIT: note that I agree and have agreed that the "good" village is the "correct" choice if things are… simple / as simple as they seem. I just believe that the "more correct" answer is to… hmmm… "trust, but verify", to go in with eyes open rather than blindly following the "best" plan. Because I don't know if the GM is awesome enough to be able to play a true Mastermind villain, and (over)confident enough in the party to actually do so.

Firefly is a bad example then, its tropey han solo smuggler stuff just used as the focus rather than the sideshow. not saying its bad, I love firefly but its a romanticized space smuggler western, and tropey underworlds are always full of traps.

assuming that two villages who are morally opposed to each other and outright do different things to the city are actually some two-village wide long-con is not realistic, it is baseless paranoia, no one does that on that scale. that requires an entire village to keep a secret, and secrets grow harder to keep the more it spreads. what your suspecting IS mustache-twirling caricatures by thinking that they are so cruel as to go so far just to con people about one village is pretty stupid: why not just have both villages pretend to be good? if your going that far, whats the benefit to one of them being open about it? the openly evil ones just hurt their cause then.

assuming everything is a trap as you do is the exact opposite of human experience, because humans generally don't assume that unless they were specifically conditioned to. its the same as the PC's assuming every vizier is actually evil and wanting to overthrow the king, its tired hackneyed trope thinking filtered through a murderhobo's desire to do the most efficient solution regardless of how realistic it actually is for a person to actually propose or do it.

King of Nowhere
2020-03-14, 12:00 AM
assuming that two villages who are morally opposed to each other and outright do different things to the city are actually some two-village wide long-con is not realistic, it is baseless paranoia, no one does that on that scale. that requires an entire village to keep a secret, and secrets grow harder to keep the more it spreads. what your suspecting IS mustache-twirling caricatures by thinking that they are so cruel as to go so far just to con people about one village is pretty stupid

on the other hand, there could be a small group in charge of it that's minupulating stuff, and using the rest of the (genuinely good) village as a cover for their plan. perhaps they are gathering the good werewolves as an excuse to secretly practice the mind-control ritual on all of them when the time is right.
I did something similar in my campaign with at least three different groups of villains; it's a good way to hide in plain sight a villain with good public relations whose plan does not involve doing evil stuff immediately, as well as to establish said villain as a skillful manipulator once the cover is blown. It's also a good way to establish a powerful villain in a world that's not full of evilness: this guy just hijacked a non-evil organization. yes, when he reveals himself a lot of his lackeys will leave, but he's gained control of all the money, information, and magical resources that way. and perhaps he's manipulated that organization into serving his goals in the meantime.

but yes, one should not assume a trap everywhere. even in my campaign, where i may have overdone it, trusting people gained more than it lost in the end. what can you do, attack any organization on the off-chance that some villain may be manipulating it?

Pleh
2020-03-14, 05:17 AM
Actually, that reminds me of the "bet" argument

Pascal's wager, as I recall. We need to be careful to keep real world religion out of this, though, so let's stick to game relevant logic.


If you wonder "how should i behave there to get into heaven", perhaps the powers that be decide that you should be punished for your selfish attitude.

Except D&D mechanics explicitly don't work that way. Good is a cosmic force and performing truly good acts is always good. At worst, having selfish motives for Moral Desserts makes the Good action ping neutral. Never evil. You have to go as far as Inquisitor stuff before extreme good starts to blur the line with evil.


Again, "good" means self-sacrificing to help others. If you care not for helping others but only for maximizing your chances to go to heaven, you are neutral at best.

Neutral at worst, not at best. Because RPG morality actually functions differently than real world stuff. Having a literal plane of Good openly and actively pursuing explicit, well defined agendas changes the dynamic. Any true cooperation with these agendas is neutral at worst.

A player trying to select the "good" option in a game likely isn't concerned with their character's afterlife in ths moment they are deciding. They are likely more concerned with what kind of person they are being in that moment.

It's good for a DM to give them information about their choices, because morality in real life is hard enough to parse. In an RPG, we have to imagine the details of the scenario before we can begin evaluating the ethics. DMs should consistently provide information about the relevant details to help players see the big picture and make an informed decision.


well, when put like that, it seems more like metagaming than anything else. "what a good character will do" is not a good question, because there are a ton of different ways a good character may behave. you should instead wonder "what this specific character would do".

actually, there are a tons of threads on the specifics of why alignments are not straightjackets and you should not let them dictate your behavior. no need to derail this one.

And players are open to devising their own plans, but in scenarios like this, the choices are intrinsically limited and bear enormous moral weight. What must be done with the cursed villagers? As you pointed out, even choosing nothing isn't a great option in any regard.

It's not alignment putting players in a straightjacket. It's a scenario with few truly good options available.

But again, the characters probably aren't thinking about their own afterlife here. They're weighing the lives of these cursed villagers against the lives of everyone else they might harm or kill later. That's where the real moral conundrum is.

Do you spare the cursed villagers, risking they become a danger to others, or do you kill them to protect everyone else?

Quertus
2020-03-14, 05:48 AM
but yes, one should not assume a trap everywhere.

Yup. But you need to be able to differentiate "assume a trap" and "realize that one is possible". It's that lack of middle ground that makes one-sided stances suboptimal. Thus, "do X" is suboptimal next to "look to do X, being mindful of the potential fail states".

Lvl45DM!
2020-03-14, 07:32 AM
Again, "good" means self-sacrificing to help others. If you care not for helping others but only for maximizing your chances to go to heaven, you are neutral at best.


Who says thats what good is?
What is good when the options avaliable do not really contain self-sacrifice as an option?
When I go to heaven do I not enhance the cause of Good? If I went to Hell does evil not have another minion?
If I sacrifice myself for these villagers, what of the countless innocents I could have saved in the future?

Moral issues are complex and thorny. And not everyone has your clear vision of what to do.

Paladin codes and getting into heaven are ways that you know what you did was right. Its appealing to an external authority for wisdom. And its not how I live my personal life but it IS how 99% of paladins live theirs.

Youre assuming that the Paladin wants to stay a paladin or get into heaven for the perks, rather than the knowledge that if they went to hell or lost the paladin status it means THEY DID SOMETHING BAD. Viewing it in a cosmic justice lens is not better or worse than viewing it from a personal lens.

I mean lets look at Miko. Clearly not a good person what with the murder of a helpless old man. Perhaps if she had cared more about losing her paladin status she mightve re-evaluated what she did better. If she appealed to an external source of morality rather than her own incredibly flawed one, the world mightve been a better place.

Or suppose theres a police officer. If they started planting evidence and using police brutality they would (hopefully) lose their badge. Thus acting in a way to preserve that badge is a way to actually keep being good.

Vinyadan
2020-03-14, 09:11 AM
To be honest, "they turn into mindless beasts every month" sounds like a more urgent problem than the eventuality of possession, especially if there are human villages or roads nearby. The "innocents" could handle that, however, if there were for example an uninhabited island they could reach by boat, or some underground structure with a phenomenally sturdy door that needs a key or code to open.

The players could have allied themselves with the good werewolves and some more (people from the city, given that they are a problem for them) to destroy the bad ones.

GrayDeath
2020-03-15, 11:50 AM
While I may be too alte to the paty, let me simply state how my last 2 D&D Chgaracters would have handled this (both under the assumption that if the DM does not announce the nonexistance of high elvel Cleric magic, it means it exists).


1.: Karnrak, Lawful Evil Warforged Warblade/Rogue Gestalt:

Escort them to the Village. Make inquiries how to help them, establish a local powerbase, and if assumptions about the danger of mind control show to be correct, let the Theurge make a few doezen protection from X amulets.
Gave me a seemingly good, but due to owing me and their curse aimed towards evil, Village of potentially powerful Lycanthropes.


And even if they betray me, as a Warforged I am immune to their abilities AND high level enough to slaughter them all anyway.

Win Win.



Ancoron: True Neutral Elven WIzard.

Make VERY sure I have all the facts.

Ask the cursed and the Good Village to make a collection, to purchase cures for them for example (even if that might not be enough for all, it will show if they are truthful).
Use Divination for the rest.

Under no circumstances "simply kill them all".



Now, if your campaign is more a Horror Fantasy than normal D&D, that will obviously change, but I for one would have taken the DM aside and simply asked out of Game if he knows that he is not actually presenting a deilemma, as there are a few ways to cure Lycanthropes.


Still, Kudos to your CE Player for successfully starting the corruption of the group! ^^

King of Nowhere
2020-03-15, 12:49 PM
Now, if your campaign is more a Horror Fantasy than normal D&D, that will obviously change, but I for one would have taken the DM aside and simply asked out of Game if he knows that he is not actually presenting a deilemma, as there are a few ways to cure Lycanthropes.

yeah, good solution, if a bit meta-gamey.
because the right solution would depend on the setting. on your regular setting you are guaranteed that you can do something about it, and killing the villagers is always bad. in a grimdark setting, there will never be any cure, killing the villagers will always be the only solution, and waiting will only make things worse.
knowing if you play an heroic fantasy or a cosmic horror is important for acting accordingly.

M. Arillius
2020-04-04, 02:17 AM
Group A was afraid that an evil werewolf would could take control of the villagers. The other infected still become beasts, but can't be mind-controlled.

I have no idea how to actually use the quote function so I'm gonna do it this way, if that's alright. Honestly, this sort of reasoning is a bit flawed. I've seen other people point out why and ultimately agree with that thought process. Anyone can be mind controlled with a wizard that has the right spells. In a lot of games I play, Enchanters (of the mind control variety, not the magic item creation variety) are as looked down upon as Necromancers, Anti-Paladins and other evil beings. That these guys can be mind controlled by some extra force isn't the best, but it's not like werewolves themselves are inherently immune to mind control. (Heck, in a lot of stories, they are very easy to at the very least lead by the nose thanks to their beastial nature.)

The only argument that can be made in defense of this reasoning is that sure, anyone can be mind controlled, but not everyone can become giant killer chainsaw monsters that turn other people into giant killer chainsaw monsters. But there we run into a bit more of that logic hole. If anyone can be mind controlled, then so can the other werewolves of the good village, which means they are just as dangerous as these folk. If these characters really care about the greater good and have this firm belief, all werewolf villages should be put down.

They are ultimately arguing the slaughter of victims of a terrible crime because they are slightly more vulnerable to being used as weapons then the average werewolf. Oh, but only to a very specific sub group (evil) of another very specific sub group (werewolves). Even if Evil werewolves take up 10% of the population of werewolves, it's still a very small subgroup of people to begin with. Assuming anyone was left alive who even knew these people could still be mind controlled. You said it took a special ritual to do, if I remember correctly, so what they are ultimately advocating for is the death of victims who could easily be contained and protected in a community of super powered, good chainsaw monsters, but ultimately must die because a werewolf who is also evil who also knows this dark magic ritual that is probably very rare and can also defeat the alpha of the other village (and probably the rest of the village with it, cause only an idiot wolf fights alone) and also knows that the Alpha is protecting a specific kind of werewolf that can be mind controlled with this ritual...

And by this point it's not that hard to see the problem with this line of reasoning, I don't think. Their reasoning for why it's dangerous is based in panic and fear, or indifference for some. They saw how terrible it was and ignore the likely hood (however unlikely it is) that history would actually repeat itself. It is a very human reaction and I don't advocate for any character to be punished for it, beyond their characters own punishments toward themselves. But I also wouldn't advocate for it myself.

Even if you remove every barrier and say, guaranteed, that all evil wolves know the ritual, can beat the village (without killing the ones he wants) and now know the existence of said werewolves... These people are still only one step closer to being dangerous then any other werewolf when it comes to a sufficiently powerful wizard. Unless they advocate for the death of all werewolves for the same reason, then I'd argue their reasoning is not based in sound logic but simply in fear. And in the end, that sort of reasoning can and will bring ruin to a world. After all, a werewolf can be dangerous... but so can a mob of regular people bewitched by sorcery.

Might as well start burning down every village you walk through. Just in case.