RPGing Exercise 1#: "The God Pool" Morality Puzzle

[Charles Phipps]

We had a fun question in our campaign that was part of a divine test that the players were supposed to pass in order to be able to claim a piece of the Rod of Seven parts. My players love RPGing out alignment and the myriad morality problems that come with their views.

Our last one was amazingly successful as it weighed two options and forced the player characters to choose. I thought it would be cool to test the Players of this forum as to how they (or their characters) or their characters might react to a complex question of which is more valuable.


The player arrives at a sacred pool of Torm Trueheart, a LG Deity of Honor and Nobility. It is stated that whomever wishes to claim an item from the sacred vault must pass tests of Valor and Honor before a final test of wisdom. Through whatever means, the player characters have managed to pass the tests of Valor and Honor. Now it is a quest for testing their wisdom.

The pool then swirls with an image of a pretty, though not beautiful, copper haired girl whom was dressed in a nightshirt. The young woman could not be any older than seventeen as she was struggling with a broadsword that was too large for her and using it as a walking stick while she stumbled along through a dank and deserted ruin. She looked close to death and he saw the fang marks on her neck.

A voice speaks outloud above the sacred pool. "This is Rebecca of Kryptgarden. She is, strangely enough, a Knight of Kelemvor. She is the last heir of a proud and noble lineage. Rebecca's family, though once noble knights of Samular, fell to insanity and undeath as she alone discovered the truth."

"She is also dying. Having slain many evils, Rebecca finally tracked down were her family had fled and destroyed most of the vampires in the morning, though it broke her heart. Unfortunately, her own sister and flesh and blood cursed her at the moment of final death. By curse's power, the bite will slowly kill her and then raise her up as a soulless monster."

"The power of the pool can rush her forward with Kelemvor's cleansing power with the blessing of Torm. The Curse will be burned from her body and while she will awaken in the morning sick, she will be able to use her supernatural strength to heal herself."

"She will then go on to become a Great and Famous Knight. Only the second woman to ever become a member of the Knights of Samular."

The pool then swirls again as it shifted to a group of a dozen men, some women, and a few children. All of them were being stalked through wilderness and forrest in chains. They were being lead by a group of Hyena headed men that were all over seven feet tall and they were bedecked in chain mail that was decorated in the Symbol of the Iron Throne.

"This sorry lot is the last survivors of a group of settlers from Waterdeep coming to live in the Silver Marches. Obould Many Arrows; an Orc blessed with magical items that have enhanced his intelligence, strength, and charisma to give him inhuman potential to unite the orcs of the Silver Marches."

"The Gnoll with gray skin, the Flind, is Natch Krieger. A worshipper of Cyric and seasoned mercenary. He brings the humans as a good will offering to Obould in hopes of becoming the warrior's confident. Combined with the magical gifts that were a gift from his employer, Natch will supply a much needed military expertise in the coming war with Silverymoon."

"The Orcs of the Silver Marches are disunited and scattered with many great raiders but few tacticians. If he's struck down by Torm's power, as is possible, then the humans will be able to escape and certainly it will be more difficult for Obould to manage his war. One that is unavoidable now."

"There is only power for one. Which do you use the power for?"

I stated that there was no 'right' answer amongst the PCs after they made their decision, it was mostly a test of their capacity to make a difficult decision between two very tough choices.

So, which is the choice that SHOULD be made?

[[red][/red]]

So, you're asking us to choose between a massive war that will destroy countless lives, and a knight dying.

I'll go with the first one.

[Zincorium]

Personally, I'd go for healing the paladin. Why?

1. Concrete consequences. Leaving the people enslaved will make a difficult war somewhat more so. Letting the paladin die will mean setting loose a high level, extremely powerful vampire on the world as well as removing a powerful champion of good.

2. Drizzt will take care of the Obould problem. Duh :smalltongue: . Okay, that's not valid character reasoning.

3. Personal value. We have no idea of the people being led in chain's character, although presumably the children are 'innocents' for whatever that's worth. The female knight has been a valiant person and will continue to be if the information we have is true (and we're not exactly expecting falsehood from Torm).


It's a tough choice, you're gonna regret what happens to the other instance. And hopefully these are theoretical, Torm's a god, and if the situations are real, and he can do one, then he can do both.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

We had a fun question in our campaign that was part of a divine test that the players were supposed to pass in order to be able to claim a piece of the Rod of Seven parts. My players love RPGing out alignment and the myriad morality problems that come with their views.

Our last one was amazingly successful as it weighed two options and forced the player characters to choose. I thought it would be cool to test the Players of this forum as to how they (or their characters) or their characters might react to a complex question of which is more valuable.



I stated that there was no 'right' answer amongst the PCs after they made their decision, it was mostly a test of their capacity to make a difficult decision between two very tough choices.

So, which is the choice that SHOULD be made?



The girl is the priority, there is no known spell I can think of to cure her with 100% accuracy.

The war with the Orcs is something that I would see as an adventure plot. I would first gain as much information as I can from that scrying bowl thingy concerning the war. Then I'd cure the girl, and after curing the girl, I would immediately begin my trek to fight against the orcs, using the magically obtained knowledge for sweet justice.

[herrhauptmann]

My characters would vary depending on their opinions, even for those of the same alignment. I personally, would choose to destroy the gnoll. My reasoning, is that the woman chose her path to fight evil, and tragic as it is, has found her final fate. The gnoll however, by living would bring war to thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocents who did not themselves choose war. So the greater good would be to kill the gnoll.


Oddly enough, I can guarantee what my first groups usual Paladin would choose. He would grant the power to the cursed woman so that she would survive and destroy a great many evils.

[Skjaldbakka]

I am in favor of the "Save the paladin with Torm's power, and then teleport in to kill the gnoll myself" plan.

[Jasdoif]

Looks like the first one is the "best" choice to me. The choice for Rebecca is one of deserved healing, and a definite outcome for one that otherwise appears lost. Meanwhile, the other choice is for pre-deserving destruction, and a slight chance of altering the outcome for a group of many that could be attained in other ways.

Basically, the second choice is merely a cheap gamble: It might shift the course of the impending war, and it might not. And there are other ways to shift the course of said war. Meanwhile, time is running out for our paladin, and her healing will have a definite effect that would be difficult/impossible to get through other means.

[Nerd-o-rama]

There are several things to consider here:

1) How much damage will the knight cause if she is allowed to fall to undeath?
1b) As a corollary, were most of the paladins I've played in her position, they'd find a way to destroy themselves as soon as they'd turned, for example binding themselves to a rock outdoors awaiting morning. But that's not the focus of this exercise.
2) How much would she prevent if she were resuscitated?

3) How much damage will the Flind's alliance with Obould cause?
4) How much would the humans prevent if freed from his grasp?

Now...caution says that a band of evildoers in an army will probably contribute more to whatever they're doing than a lone heroine. On the other hand, strictly speaking, it's probably better to use this divine gift to give life to a hero than indiscriminate death to petty bandits.

Here's my "heroic" character's solution:

I thank the Pool of Plot very much for its information, and request that it free the girl from her curse. Then, I rush off for the Frozen North to stop Natch and his band, or failing that, supplement Silverymoon's defenses with my own skill and information on Obould's new recruits. This, I feel, is the most good outcome that makes the fullest use of the pool's and my personal powers.

Of course, if I was playing a character with Break Enchantment or the like, I could do it the opposite way, but very seldom do I play spellcasters.

Also, with my choice, I can say "Save the Paladin. Save the World." in my most somber voice, then teleport away. OOC, it's worth it just for that.

[Xefas]

If I, personally made the choice, within the context of the setting, I would save the Paladin.

Given the D&D Afterlife, where the Lower Planes are a very real place to go, I would be *far* more concerned with the resting place of a person's soul. If that chick becomes a vampire, she's going to most likely commit some heinous acts, which will damn her to eternal suffering.

The captives/citizens are going to be killed, yes, but if they're good people, then they'll be sent to the Upper Planes, where whatever pain they faced in the Prime will be as nothing to their blissful eternity.

And if some of the captives/citizens are evil, then they chose to be evil. Its much different than being forced to be evil by becoming a vampire.

[AslanCross]

I'd save the girl, possibly teleport to her and ask for her aid to help in the impending war. There is just no assurance as to what will happen to the people when they're freed---if they're in a dangerous area with orcs and gnolls lurking about, they might just get captured again. Saving the girl prevents the appearance of a new evil and retains a champion on the side of good who can possibly help save those humans.


On the other hand, given that the girl's a paladin of Kelemvor herself and she knows she's about to become a vampire, she'd most likely find a way to destroy herself when the curse finally takes place; undead are anathema to the church of Kelemvor, after all. Still, that's only a net loss on the side of good, and the fate of the humans will still be uncertain. I think that either way, the prisoners will end up in an uncertain situation, where in the case of the girl the result can be predicted to end in one of a few ways:
1. If she is not saved, she will either become a powerful vampire who will make life difficult for a lot of innocents, or she will find a way to destroy herself when the transformation happens.
2. If she is saved, she will most likely continue to fight on the side of good and may be a worthy ally.

With the prisoners, it's all up in the air. I'd go with something I can be sure of.

[CatCameBack]

Personally, my character would use the power to create a really tasty ham sandwich and let the Realms burn.

I don't like Forgotten Realms.:smalltongue:

Seriously, I'd probably bring back the Paladin. A force for good is invaluable, and it sounds as if she was taken "before her time". War would only be averted for a few years, until another gifted humanoid rose to lead the orcs.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I don't like Forgotten Realms.:smalltongue:

As spoken in middle english: It doeth blowith merily.

Edit: you know I really don't see the problem in this choice, it's pretty clear that if the adventurers really did give a hoot, they would cure the girl with the power of the god, and then enter the war themselves and stop it.

[sun_tzu]

I've myself changed opinion several times while reading this thread. I can find very good arguments for either decision, but all things considered, I'll save the prisoners for a simple reason: If the paladin had a choice between her rescue and theirs, I'm fairly confident she'd want to save them.

[Cruiser1]

I'd also save the girl, but for a different reason: Healing her is definitely a good act, since it's peacefully helping someone. Smiting the Gnoll from afar in a cowardly fashion could be considered an evil act, since it's aggressively killing him without trying to reform him or find a peaceful solution, and it's too much along the lines of "the ends justify the means" for my comfort.

[Charles Phipps]

Interesting, what would be the *proper* Paladin's decision?

[Mike_Lemmer]

I'd say she should ask Torm to heal her, then repay him for his generous help by teleporting to the gnoll, killing him, and freeing the prisoners.

This is, for all intents, a miracle. There's thousands of ways to kill somebody. There's few ways to save somebody. Use the miracle for the harder problem & use more mundane means for the easier problem. If solving the harder problem helps you solve the easier problem too, all the better.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Interesting, what would be the *proper* Paladin's decision?
My answer stands for most Good characters I'd play, including my favorite class.

[Lemur]

What would I do (assuming I'm a reasonably good person)? Without reading any of the other responses yet, I'd have to go with saving the captured settlers. It's not particularly important that Obould's war effort will be hampered by the Natch's death.

The primary reason is that the settlers are innocents, while Rebecca is a warrior. A noble warrior who fights for a good cause, but all warriors know the risks of what they do. Death could come at any moment, and when fighting creatures like vampires, becoming the enemy is a risk as well. Her death will certainly be a tragic thing, especially considering her illustrious future, but it does not justify sacrificing the lives of people trying to live an ordinary life. If Rebecca was in my situation, and I in hers, wouldn't she make the same decision, being a proud and noble warrior?

[deadseashoals]

I'd save the group... it sounds like the paladin would want it that way. Real choice there though, props to you :smallwink:

[Roderick_BR]

I find this kind of moral dillema interesting.
Hmm... my gut reaction is to cure the knight. smiting the leader of the orcs would prevent war and death of thousands, though.
But as someone said, curing the knight would both restore a champion of good, and prevent a greater evil to be unleashed.
Letting the orc live, however you are allowing a possible war that can kill hundreds before it's stopped.
But, who says that killing said orc will prevent the war at all? Or future ones? I'd say that curing a knight of a powerful curse is the sort of thing you need divine power to do. A war can be stopped by valiant armies. And having a powerful knight on your side will tip the scales in your favor.

I'd save the knight.

It also reminds me of the last level of StarTreck Starfleet Academy for SNES.
In the last level, you are faced with a choice. A star will explode soon, and there's two ships close to it, but far from each other.
One have the last survivors of an entire race. If they die, the race will be completely extinct.
The other is a race of scientists that can find cure for hundreds of diseases for the whole galaxy.
You can warp in, teleport the passengers of one ship into your own, and warp out. You can save only one ship.

Solution: If you do try to save both, the star explodes before you manage to escape. You can really save only one ship.
You need to pick one (any is correct), warp to a far place, and wait a few minutes.
After the explosion, one of the characters complains that this was an unfair exam, and Kirk himself shows up to tell him that the purpose of that test was to show that sometimes you can't save all, and must concentrate on doing what you can.
In this case, trying to save both ships will get both killed. You need to pick one, and accept that you couldn't have saved both.

[Kizara]

Really, this is fairly obvious:

Who, in the scheme of DnD, is going to have more of an impact on the world?

1) High level Paladin.

2) Bunch of commoners that will almost assuredly die ANYWAYS. You only get to kill the gnoll leader, they are still SoL when it comes to the rest of the band. As a side effect, you can hamper the war effort. So?

Why that isn't even a valid reason:

1) The paladin could probably take out the gnoll herself, since by description she is probably more powerful.

2) This comming war, and the success of bringing all the bands of evil things together, gives you an excellent opportunity to wipe out alot of evil. All the evil is conviently massing itself into one ball and throwing itself at you. Far from a problem, this is actually FANTASTIC!

[Kizara]

I find this kind of moral dillema interesting.
Hmm... my gut reaction is to cure the knight. smiting the leader of the orcs would prevent war and death of thousands, though.
But as someone said, curing the knight would both restore a champion of good, and prevent a greater evil to be unleashed.
Letting the orc live, however you are allowing a possible war that can kill hundreds before it's stopped.
But, who says that killing said orc will prevent the war at all? Or future ones? I'd say that curing a knight of a powerful curse is the sort of thing you need divine power to do. A war can be stopped by valiant armies. And having a powerful knight on your side will tip the scales in your favor.

I'd save the knight.

It also reminds me of the last level of StarTreck Starfleet Academy for SNES.
In the last level, you are faced with a choice. A star will explode soon, and there's two ships close to it, but far from each other.
One have the last survivors of an entire race. If they die, the race will be completely extinct.
The other is a race of scientists that can find cure for hundreds of diseases for the whole galaxy.
You can warp in, teleport the passengers of one ship into your own, and warp out. You can save only one ship.

Solution: If you do try to save both, the star explodes before you manage to escape. You can really save only one ship.
You need to pick one (any is correct), warp to a far place, and wait a few minutes.
After the explosion, one of the characters complains that this was an unfair exam, and Kirk himself shows up to tell him that the purpose of that test was to show that sometimes you can't save all, and must concentrate on doing what you can.
In this case, trying to save both ships will get both killed. You need to pick one, and accept that you couldn't have saved both.

You can't kill the orc leader, you can only kill the gnoll leader of a small mercenary band escorting a couple dozen human commoners. You won't prevent anything, at absolute best you will make the coming war easier to win.

[ZeroNumerous]

Myself.

Why do I care whether goody-two-shoes goes off and gets herself killed? After using my new Wish, I'd teleport to the paladin and watch her die. When she becomes undead, a simple Command Undead gives me a new minion. From there, it's teleporting over to the gnoll, killing him, and then taking his humans to give to the Emperor so that I may assist him against Silverymoon. Once his armies are away, attacking the humans and killing as many as possible, I assassinate the Emperor and his family. Once I've ensured that I've murdered them all, I systematically begin eliminating the noble caste until no one is left to claim legitimate power to the throne.

My subsequent actions will demand upon the chaos sewn by these acts. If there is anyone charismatic enough to garner much support among the orcs, then I find them and murder them. Eventually, my actions will have caused enough chaos to complacate the world.

Ultimately, I achieve world peace through Chaos and Evil. :smallbiggrin:

[mostlyharmful]

got to go with the save a high level good NPC from becoming a high level frickn vampire NPC over assassinating one mid level flunky. The prisoners are a complete red herring, you can't save them. Also by pointing out one of Oboulds future support leaders Torm has made the war easier to fight/win. Plus you'll have a high level pally to help you:smallsmile:

[Blanks]

Aslan Solaris, Priest of Tyr:
Save the children. Whatever else may happen they are children and should allways be our first priority. The paladin chose to fight vampires, the children didn't choose anything.
Save the children.

[mostlyharmful]

Aslan Solaris, Priest of Tyr:
Save the children. Whatever else may happen they are children and should allways be our first priority. The paladin chose to fight vampires, the children didn't choose anything.
Save the children.

You can't save the children. All you can do is kill the leader of the bandits, then you have lots of scared bandits, that are liable to do any damn thing. the children are just as screwed, if not more so for the sudden lack of stability in their captors. the captives will be able to escape doesn't save them from the war or put them in a safe environment away from the savage north, they just get a short reprieve. To save them you'd need to be there and then escort them to civilisation.

[Charles Phipps]

The player character made a choice, FYI, similar to some of the people here. The player character chose to smite the Gnoll and rescue the children while intending to try and get to the lady to end her before she rises as the undead (or, gods willing, save her.) At the very least, he'll try and put her down for Kelemvor and his own sake.

It was a very popular quiz though with the players.

I've actually started preparing a few other of these quizzes.

Here's two more "logic puzzles" that DO have answers. They're meant to be teasers though.

1. Elvish Land Swindle: The player characters find a group of refugees is at war with a bunch of elves in a nearby forest, though neither side is willing to risk their small numbers for an all out attack. The elves claim the entire region as their own and view the humans as interlopers. They reserve the right to kill tresspassers and people endangering their homes that their immortality depends upon since these elves draw their longeviety from their trees.

The great irony is that the refugees themselves aren't squatters but their leader claims the land in the name of an ancient human Empire that stood there centuries before. All of the refugees are genuinely the descendents of said Empire with simple biology meaning that all of them have claim to the noble bloodline that once had a city there. The Elves, while inhabiting the land for a few elvish generations, are actually the squatters after said region fell.

Both groups would like a peaceful settlement but its clear that any rebuilding of said city and doing more than picking dirt farming would require reclaiming the forest.

2. Zhentariam Civilization: The player characters have been sent to investigate where the Hell the Black Network has been getting it's rather vast collection of coinage and Humanoid mercenaries that they've been rather unstoppable with lately. The answer is in the land of Thar where the players find one of the group's typically disgusting deals. The Zhentariam trade relatively worthless trade goods to the Orcs, Kobolds, and Goblins in exchange for large amounts of valuable iron ore, coal, etc. with levies of troops to cover any quotas that aren't met.

The irony is that the Orcs have been genuinely prospering from their relationship despite getting the vastly shorter end of the stick. They've managed to construct human-equivalent levels of towns, pens for farm animals to feed their carnivorous appetites, and have dominated the local region with their increasingly good smithwork mixed with advanced weaponry (The Zhents introducing the Long Bow, Crossbow, and mildly effective tactics.)

Cloth, Nails, Tools, and farm equipment adds up over awhile.

Needless to say, the kingdom that hired them is going to be apoleptic that there's an Orc society in his backyard that will soon be a power to reckon with. One that has nothing but good will towards a group well preparing to wage a war of conquest. If they encourage their backers to strike now, they could well defeat it.

On the other hand....perhaps an Orc kingdom is a good thing? At the very least, the traders to the developing nation are gaining a substantial war chest.

[Kizara]

The player character made a choice, FYI, similar to some of the people here. The player character chose to smite the Gnoll and rescue the children while intending to try and get to the lady to end her before she rises as the undead (or, gods willing, save her.) At the very least, he'll try and put her down for Kelemvor and his own sake.

It was a very popular quiz though with the players.

I've actually started preparing a few other of these quizzes.

Here's two more "logic puzzles" that DO have answers. They're meant to be teasers though.

1. Elvish Land Swindle: The player characters find a group of refugees is at war with a bunch of elves in a nearby forest, though neither side is willing to risk their small numbers for an all out attack. The elves claim the entire region as their own and view the humans as interlopers. They reserve the right to kill tresspassers and people endangering their homes that their immortality depends upon since these elves draw their longeviety from their trees.

The great irony is that the refugees themselves aren't squatters but their leader claims the land in the name of an ancient human Empire that stood there centuries before. All of the refugees are genuinely the descendents of said Empire with simple biology meaning that all of them have claim to the noble bloodline that once had a city there. The Elves, while inhabiting the land for a few elvish generations, are actually the squatters after said region fell.

Both groups would like a peaceful settlement but its clear that any rebuilding of said city and doing more than picking dirt farming would require reclaiming the forest.

2. Zhentariam Civilization: The player characters have been sent to investigate where the Hell the Black Network has been getting it's rather vast collection of coinage and Humanoid mercenaries that they've been rather unstoppable with lately. The answer is in the land of Thar where the players find one of the group's typically disgusting deals. The Zhentariam trade relatively worthless trade goods to the Orcs, Kobolds, and Goblins in exchange for large amounts of valuable iron ore, coal, etc. with levies of troops to cover any quotas that aren't met.

The irony is that the Orcs have been genuinely prospering from their relationship despite getting the vastly shorter end of the stick. They've managed to construct human-equivalent levels of towns, pens for farm animals to feed their carnivorous appetites, and have dominated the local region with their increasingly good smithwork mixed with advanced weaponry (The Zhents introducing the Long Bow, Crossbow, and mildly effective tactics.)

Cloth, Nails, Tools, and farm equipment adds up over awhile.

Needless to say, the kingdom that hired them is going to be apoleptic that there's an Orc society in his backyard that will soon be a power to reckon with. One that has nothing but good will towards a group well preparing to wage a war of conquest. If they encourage their backers to strike now, they could well defeat it.

On the other hand....perhaps an Orc kingdom is a good thing? At the very least, the traders to the developing nation are gaining a substantial war chest.


First question:

1) This is WAY better then the OP question, as the lines of who is right is sufficiently blurrier.

2) I'm sorry, but "We've been living here for 1000 years (few elven generations" trumps "we used to belong to a civilization that existed 3000 years ago, here" pretty damn soundly. Claims are backed by power, power involves responsibility and stewardship of the land/people that your power is drawn from.

As for as resolving the issue at hand, I would think that the elves would respect the human's ancestry and if the humans were reasonable/respectful about it, maintain peaceful and productive relations with them. The elves could help them re-establish a city and re-start their noble civilization: somewhere else, that is nearby.

Second Question:

Don't really understand it, or the crucial question.

I get the part where a criminal organization has been trading and mutually prospering with an orc tribe, but what is the question at hand? Whether or not to attack the orcs? You need to say that, explicitly, as well as outline how practical it would be to actually accomplish that.

[Charles Phipps]

1. In this case, the Elvish argument is usually that human beings are attempting to move into their territories. In this case, the human beings have owned this territory and have nowhere else to go at this point. The elves are successful and prosperous but the humans are decidedly not due to whatever disaster drove them from their homeland.

They're decidedly annoyed the elves have "stolen" their territory.

2. The basic gist of the matter is the fact that the Orcs are serving as a supply force for a powerful evil organization. One that the presuming reigning kingdom of goodness in the area (Cormyr in this case) wishes to see put a stop to before it threatens their borders.

The PCs are surprised to discover that the Orcs have become very civilized (by Orc standards) thanks to their trade with the "evil" organization. It's possible that, given time, they could become a regular race of good....or ambigous morality like humans.

[Kizara]

1. In this case, the Elvish argument is usually that human beings are attempting to move into their territories. In this case, the human beings have owned this territory and have nowhere else to go at this point. The elves are successful and prosperous but the humans are decidedly not due to whatever disaster drove them from their homeland.

They're decidedly annoyed the elves have "stolen" their territory.

2. The basic gist of the matter is the fact that the Orcs are serving as a supply force for a powerful evil organization. One that the presuming reigning kingdom of goodness in the area (Cormyr in this case) wishes to see put a stop to before it threatens their borders.

The PCs are surprised to discover that the Orcs have become very civilized (by Orc standards) thanks to their trade with the "evil" organization. It's possible that, given time, they could become a regular race of good....or ambigous morality like humans.

1) This reiteration has not changed my stance on the matter.

2) OK, but what is the QUESTION that is being asked of the reader/character? What are the options? What is the viability of those options?

[Charles Phipps]

2) OK, but what is the QUESTION that is being asked of the reader/character? What are the options? What is the viability of those options?

The idea is its an open ended one. How does someone deal with the possibilities.

It's more an adventure than simple choice.

[sun_tzu]

1. Elvish Land Swindle: The player characters find a group of refugees is at war with a bunch of elves in a nearby forest, though neither side is willing to risk their small numbers for an all out attack. The elves claim the entire region as their own and view the humans as interlopers. They reserve the right to kill tresspassers and people endangering their homes that their immortality depends upon since these elves draw their longeviety from their trees.

The great irony is that the refugees themselves aren't squatters but their leader claims the land in the name of an ancient human Empire that stood there centuries before. All of the refugees are genuinely the descendents of said Empire with simple biology meaning that all of them have claim to the noble bloodline that once had a city there. The Elves, while inhabiting the land for a few elvish generations, are actually the squatters after said region fell.

Both groups would like a peaceful settlement but its clear that any rebuilding of said city and doing more than picking dirt farming would require reclaiming the forest.
Well, sucks to be the humans, but "dislodging the folks who have been living here for the last few generations" is less acceptable than "not allowing refuges whose distant ancestors owned this land to reclaim it". Especially since the elves apparently need this specific forest for their longevity, while the humans could, in theory, live somewhere else.


2. Zhentariam Civilization: The player characters have been sent to investigate where the Hell the Black Network has been getting it's rather vast collection of coinage and Humanoid mercenaries that they've been rather unstoppable with lately. The answer is in the land of Thar where the players find one of the group's typically disgusting deals. The Zhentariam trade relatively worthless trade goods to the Orcs, Kobolds, and Goblins in exchange for large amounts of valuable iron ore, coal, etc. with levies of troops to cover any quotas that aren't met.

The irony is that the Orcs have been genuinely prospering from their relationship despite getting the vastly shorter end of the stick. They've managed to construct human-equivalent levels of towns, pens for farm animals to feed their carnivorous appetites, and have dominated the local region with their increasingly good smithwork mixed with advanced weaponry (The Zhents introducing the Long Bow, Crossbow, and mildly effective tactics.)

Cloth, Nails, Tools, and farm equipment adds up over awhile.

Needless to say, the kingdom that hired them is going to be apoleptic that there's an Orc society in his backyard that will soon be a power to reckon with. One that has nothing but good will towards a group well preparing to wage a war of conquest. If they encourage their backers to strike now, they could well defeat it.

On the other hand....perhaps an Orc kingdom is a good thing? At the very least, the traders to the developing nation are gaining a substantial war chest.
Seems simple enough: Start trading with the orcs too, giving them actual fair trades - then, when they see it's better doing business with you, demand that they boycott the Zhentariam.

[bugsysservant]

Well, if it was a generic good character, I would choose to hinder the war. This is pretty obvious, it prevents the death of thousands of "innocents" whereas the paladin was well aware of the implications of going after her family. Plus, after killing them, she would probably have to live with a lot of guilt anyway.

If it were me, I would definitely heal the paladin. Killing the warleaders opens up a whole bunch of moral implications about death and moral relativism. While these are addressed fairly concretely in the alignment system, I personally don't believe in them in real life.

[Blanks]

You can't save the children. All you can do is kill the leader of the bandits, then you have lots of scared bandits, that are liable to do any damn thing. the children are just as screwed, if not more so for the sudden lack of stability in their captors. the captives will be able to escape doesn't save them from the war or put them in a safe environment away from the savage north, they just get a short reprieve. To save them you'd need to be there and then escort them to civilisation.

I can't has save the children?

OP:

then the humans will be able to escape

Yay i CAN has save the children!

Listen, if the choice is between nothing and something the moral dilemma is gone. Therefore the children WILL be saved if you choose that and the paladin WILL survive if thats your choice. You can think whatever you want, but unless you follow the OP the discussion is moot...

[Kizara]

Well, if it was a generic good character, I would choose to hinder the war. This is pretty obvious, it prevents the death of thousands of "innocents" whereas the paladin was well aware of the implications of going after her family. Plus, after killing them, she would probably have to live with a lot of guilt anyway.

If it were me, I would definitely heal the paladin. Killing the warleaders opens up a whole bunch of moral implications about death and moral relativism. While these are addressed fairly concretely in the alignment system, I personally don't believe in them in real life.

Read what your options actually are.

Stopping the war isn't one of them. Killing the leader of a band of gnolls, that would support the war (possibily signifigantly) is. You may save lives doing this.

I bet you a high level paladin would save alot more (and probably help you kill said gnoll) if you healed her instead.

[hewhosaysfish]

Q1)
Determining who has the legal right to the forest is impossible (because the former human empire and the elven kingdom will both use different legal systems. Finding the moral rights of it could involve deep and complex analysis for the reasons why the humans lost the land, how the elves gained it, why the humans haven't returned until now, what they did with the land while they owned it, blah, blah.
Or both groups can extract their heads from their rears and share. The elves can accept that they're "usually CG" and should be helpful, while the humans can accept that they're refugees and may need to swallow their pride to survive.
The humans live in the forest with the elves, the elves teach the humans how to live off leaf bark and moonbeams like elves do, the prevailing political structure remains. No-one gets kicked out, no-one kills anyone.
If the forest can't support them all, the elves should offer them what charity they can while helping the humans look for either a) somewhere else to live or b) a way to deal with whatever made them refugees in the first place. In return, the humans should be bloody grateful, not kill any of their hosts and (wherever they end up settling) institute a tradition of hospitality towards elves.
How should the PCs arrange both sides to agree to these arrangements? Getting the leaders of both sides around a table and slapping them with a fish may work. Clobber the first fool who raises a weapon in anger. If neither side can accept a compromise, leave them to each other.


Q2) Our objectives:
- Cut off the supply of goodies to Zhentarim.
- Prevent the Zhentarim and the Orc Nation from developing an alliance.
- Help the Orc Nation to grow into a benevolent and prosperous community.
- Get shinies. Ooh shiny!

The simple and obvious solution: Undercut the Zhentarim. You say they're giving low-quality trade goods to the Orcs in exchange for decent stuff - so if you give the Orcs an even trade then you'll their new best friends. Establish diplomatic ties. You can encourage them to, for example, not ally with the Zhentarim to kill you. This also diverts the stuff that was going to the Zhentarim war-chest into your own. You're paying more than they did but it's still a fair price. Be sure to slander those cheap-skate Zhentarim (Cheats! Liars! Thieves!) to your new Orc buddies thus making attempts to reopen trade really hard.
Allow some migration, not enough into your country that the Orc work-force haemorrages into your population, not enough out of your country that Orcs complain of humans taking all the best jobs but enough for the cultures to mingle. Hope the mingling of cultures helps move the Orcs away from violent ethos of the past. Support the Orcs who are trading and farming; accuse those who are still war-mongering of being stuck in the past and wanting to ruin the happiness of their fellow Orc (they may not care but their fellow Orc will).

How do the PCs get both sides to agree to this? Fear should motivate the king, greed the Orcs. Alternatively, get them all around a table and slap them with a fish. :smallsmile:

[Kizara]

Well, if it was a generic good character, I would choose to hinder the war. This is pretty obvious, it prevents the death of thousands of "innocents" whereas the paladin was well aware of the implications of going after her family. Plus, after killing them, she would probably have to live with a lot of guilt anyway.

If it were me, I would definitely heal the paladin. Killing the warleaders opens up a whole bunch of moral implications about death and moral relativism. While these are addressed fairly concretely in the alignment system, I personally don't believe in them in real life.

"If he's struck down by Torm's power, as is possible, then the humans will be able to escape and certainly it will be more difficult for Obould to manage his war."

You see, I suppose I disagree that striking down the gnoll would ACTUALLY allow the humans to escape.

Even still, it would only allow them to escape the gnoll, the odds of them actually escaping to freedom/safety are still negligable.

[pendell]

We had a fun question in our campaign that was part of a divine test that the players were supposed to pass in order to be able to claim a piece of the Rod of Seven parts. My players love RPGing out alignment and the myriad morality problems that come with their views.

Our last one was amazingly successful as it weighed two options and forced the player characters to choose. I thought it would be cool to test the Players of this forum as to how they (or their characters) or their characters might react to a complex question of which is more valuable.



I stated that there was no 'right' answer amongst the PCs after they made their decision, it was mostly a test of their capacity to make a difficult decision between two very tough choices.

So, which is the choice that SHOULD be made?

I don't know if it is the "right" answer, but my answer is to use the power for the knight.

The reason is that a soulless vampire will be a tremendous force for evil in the world and will cause much pain and suffering on it's own account. It will also make more of it's kind. The damage it will cause may very well last for generations, if not millenia.

Destroying this evil alone would be enough reason to use the pool thus. The fact that it also adds a tremendous power for good to the side of the equation is added sugar.

By contrast, the villagers ... while they are, of course human and of incalculable worth in that regard ... can do little good or little harm. Their actions will distract Obould somewhat, but I do not believe they will stop him from waging his war. Saving them will bring about only a momentary good, not a lasting one (except, of course, for them).

That's the reason of the Head. The reason of the Heart is that I consider being cursed to be an evil undead, trapped in unending misery for near forever, to be a far worse fate than simple death. I just don't have it in me to leave an innocent trapped in such a horrible place, even if it means I have to let the villagers die. This is the Forgotten Realms, after all. When they die their souls will go to eternal rest, while the knight will suffer the agonies of the damned for near eternity.

There ARE some things worse than death.

Thus, my decision. I'm not going to pretend to like it. I prefer to save both. But if I have to choose, that is the choice I make.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[pendell]

1. In this case, the Elvish argument is usually that human beings are attempting to move into their territories. In this case, the human beings have owned this territory and have nowhere else to go at this point. The elves are successful and prosperous but the humans are decidedly not due to whatever disaster drove them from their homeland.

They're decidedly annoyed the elves have "stolen" their territory.


This reminds me somewhat of certain real-life issues in the middle east that have taxed the peacemaking abilities of people far wiser than I.

My thought is that, all other things being equal, possession is 9/10ths of the law. The fact that this land belonged to those humans great-to-the-nth ancestors doesn't change the fact that the land was vacated and claimed by others who have been living here a long time.

The best solution, IMO, is to share the land. The humans may stay, but they will have to take up elvish ways and live the elves' way. If the elves want to give them some land to farm as normal humans, that's all to the good. But a 3000 year old claim doesn't give the humans the right to displace the current inhabitants and make the land into something it no longer is.

If they can't share the land peacefully, then let 'em fight it on a battle plane, winner take all. The loser has to move elsewhere and either build another colony or be assimilated into some other group.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fawsto]

The Girl...

Smiting the Gnoll with a suspicious attack isnt Honorable and barely Neutral (could be evil). It is the same, at a Paladin's view, as droping poison into his Mug during a negotiation. For a Lawful Good God, It is not right to attack him like that. Torm would want you to go there and fight him face to face.

Btw. Between destroying someone's life or saving someone's life. Always go for the saving. It is the rigth thing.

Save the Girl.

[Blanks]

You see, I suppose I disagree that striking down the gnoll would ACTUALLY allow the humans to escape.
But the OP was very clear that the humans WOULD escape. Im not flaming you, i think it would be reasonable to question this in another situation, but this is a moral dilemma, not an actual problem.

Nowhere in the original post does it say that the paladin, the vampires and the gnoll even exists - its "what would you do in this situation" so the posts about teleporting in to help the paladin is also "cheating the moral dilemma"

This is ofcourse all IMO...

[Kizara]

But the OP was very clear that the humans WOULD escape. Im not flaming you, i think it would be reasonable to question this in another situation, but this is a moral dilemma, not an actual problem.

Nowhere in the original post does it say that the paladin, the vampires and the gnoll even exists - its "what would you do in this situation" so the posts about teleporting in to help the paladin is also "cheating the moral dilemma"

This is ofcourse all IMO...

Oh, I never took your post about this to in any way be an attack on me. I'm sorry if I came off as defensive. If you read the OPers follow-up post, you can actually see that the player in question that this dilema was originally for actually did "cheat" in the fashion you describe.

[Fawsto]

As Cruiser1 said, and as I sated, smiting the Gnoll with a power he cannot see or fight back is Evil. Saving the Girl is mostly an Exalted act. It is just the best thing to do. Even if the Gnoll is so evil and deserves to be smited, a true LG Deity would want you to do it "by the book", understand?

Ohh... Just one thing... Ermmm Vampirism is a desease? If yes, considering the Girl a Paladin of a reasonable level, wouldn't se be imune to it? Even if she dies, she is still a Paladin so her supernatural abilities and powers are still afecting her body. So, if Vamp = Desease, she is imune. Ok, but, even if she was only to die, I'd save her anyway.

[Blanks]

I read the followup post, but maybe this is a question about how you view the post:

1)
What would your character do in this problem?

2)
What would you do in a moral dilemma like this?


If you look at it like 1) then your character has to say "is this pool correct in that the people will escape?". If it is 2) then the pool says they escape so they escape :)

The problem with 1) is that a lot of posters should say something like: "i cast wish, and wish that the people are right next to me and my friends. If they are teleported to us, good. If we are teleported to them, 10 level gnoll meet Thog2 my friend, the 234523 level barbarian. "Grr Thog2 powerattack for 572+1d12 damage"

The moral dilemma is so much more interesting, as it makes the discussion similar for everyone. That was also (IMO) how the original post was written.



BTW:
Loved the dude who played an evil character - sadly i play a LG 3rd level right now so i couldn't say "Obould you say. Perhaps he needs a new henchman?" :smallbiggrin:

[preserver3]

The good of the many, outweighs the good of the few or the one.

On one hand we face Vampirism, a plague that spreads from one to another without theoretical limit and leaves its victims prisoners until killed.

On the other we have a warlord, whose depredations will last roughly 1 -2 generations at most.

In the first example we have a champion who can be raised as a positive symbol for Law and good, a champion of her sex, under-represented in a partially misogynistic world, who will slay evils for some time to come.

On the other we have the suffering of a few who through no fault of their own, are unable to defend themselves.



That said, a paladin who has sworn an oath to protect innocents must choose the imprisoned folk.

I don't see much else in the final equation beyond that. The Female Paladin looks like the choice, unless an oath, bound in law and good is required.

[mikeejimbo]

The Original Question:

I'd save the girl, she sounds cute.

Er, um, I have a real reason too. Killing the Gnoll would allow the humans to escape, but would only hinder, not prevent the Orc's war. The Paladin, meanwhile, would be a champion of good who could save more than the Orc would ever kill with his war.

On the other hand, we're looking at "death of a few people" versus "death of one person", and the few people DO include children. I can honestly say it depends on my character.

My Neutral Good Cleric would kill the gnoll, while feeling quite sad about the Paladin, but reasoning that she is (or was) less helpless than the villagers.

My Neutral Evil True Necromancer would kill the gnoll, teleport to the Paladin and Rebuke Undead until she was commanded, then teleport to the villagers, slay them and animate them too. :D

The Forest:

I'd want to slay the elves and give the humans the land. Thrice-cursed elves and their longevity, that's totally unfair to the short-lived humans... But I realize that would hardly be 'good'. I think in reality, I'd also try to get them to share.

The Orcs:

My Neutral Good Cleric would agree that trading with them to build their trust would be a good idea. My Neutral Evil True Necromancer would kill them all and raise them as zombies. :D

[Manave_E_Sulanul]

I'd save the Paladin.

Then, after she was brought back to full strength I'd tell her about the captives and if she is the knight she ought to be then she'll come help us rescue them.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I'd save the Paladin.

Then, after she was brought back to full strength I'd tell her about the captives and if she is the knight she ought to be then she'll come help us rescue them.

Ooo that's an even better solution than the one I proposed, I didn't even think about asking the paladin to come help kill people in the war.

[daggaz]

I dont know... if you had said that you could avert the war, or at least make it FAR easier, then I think you could say this puzzle has no best answer. As it stands now, I would definitely save the girl, and I have a 20 wis in RL. =D

[Fishy]

Pool of Miracles:
My character actually doesn't care about either the Paladin or stopping the war. What's in it for him, though, is the shiny McGuffin if he picks the 'Right' answer- "You're supposed to save the kids, right? Needs of the many and all that?"

Land Dispute:
"Duh. Set up the humans with enough illusion magic that they can build their village and convince the elves that they've decided to leave. Everybody's happy."

From a less cynical perspective: the elves have evidently worked out a way to live in the forest without harming the trees that grant them life- or else they'd be dead. Can't we convince both sides to put down swords for a minute, and teach the humans how to build a bio-sustainable settlement?

[Citizen Joe]

I choose.... neither.

"These are the affairs of mortal men. If we are truly to grow and become better people, we cannot rely on the hand of god to protect us from our own destiny. The girl has gone through great trials and sacrifice, I would not diminish that sacrifice by pulling the threads of destiny. As to the gnolls, his plan may succeed for now, but evil eventually turns on itself and the priest of Cyric knows this well. For the brief instant that the gnolls are unified, it will give the truly courageous and noble a chance to stand strong with honor."

[Telonius]

Save the paladin. Slaves can escape, but undeath is a little more permanent.

Actually, save the paladin, and then tell her that you made that choice. She'll be off like a shot to free the slaves.

[Randalor]

For the "Elves vs. Humans" question: The forest supports the elves, but is it that they draw life from each tree, or does the forest put out the same amount of support as long as it's larger than X? One long-term solution could be to slowly "move" the forest -plant X trees on the side closest to the ancient city border, when those trees become life-supporting, cut down X, and plant Y more, repeating until the old city is uncovered and is now surrounded on one side by a bountiful forest filled with friendly elves.

[Charles Phipps]

You see, I suppose I disagree that striking down the gnoll would ACTUALLY allow the humans to escape.

Well in this case, the death of their leader by the wrath of god scares the Gnolls into fleeing post haste. Of course, they're left in a rather hostile environment about to go to war.

Also, I made the unpleasant coda that Saverok (the archvillain) just sent another advisor.

[Xuincherguixe]

For the Elf/Human troubles.

Did the elves just happen to run across an uninhabited forest and move in? If so, then they have the rights to the land. The Refugees can go somewhere else. Maybe under a flag of truce a negotiation can take place, and the elves might be able to support the refugees long enough until they can find a place to take them in.


On the Orcish trading.

Just because they are more "civilized" does not mean that they are no longer going to be evil. Level of technology is not a measure of morality. Since these Orcs have demonstrated a willingness to trade, it might be possible to reason with them. If it's reasonably likely that the Orcs will stop raiding, offer them better deals. Hire some of them as mercenaries.

If advanced Orcs only means advanced death, eliminate the threat in the most effective way possible. Such as sneak some poison into the supplies. Even if they don't all die they'll assume they were betrayed. And then get killed off with a fair amount of ease.

[Mike_Lemmer]

I choose.... neither.

"These are the affairs of mortal men. If we are truly to grow and become better people, we cannot rely on the hand of god to protect us from our own destiny. The girl has gone through great trials and sacrifice, I would not diminish that sacrifice by pulling the threads of destiny. As to the gnolls, his plan may succeed for now, but evil eventually turns on itself and the priest of Cyric knows this well. For the brief instant that the gnolls are unified, it will give the truly courageous and noble a chance to stand strong with honor."

That's just inhumane. You have a chance to help either of them and give it up because it would "diminish a sacrifice" or "deny others a chance to stand with honor"? I'd hate to see you as a combat medic.

"I'm sorry, soldier, but saving you from your fatal wounds would diminish your sacrifice. Any emotional last words you want me to pass on?"

"Yes. F*** you."

[Xuincherguixe]

That's just inhumane.

I think that was the point.

[bugsysservant]

Read what your options actually are.

Stopping the war isn't one of them. Killing the leader of a band of gnolls, that would support the war (possibily signifigantly) is. You may save lives doing this.

I bet you a high level paladin would save alot more (and probably help you kill said gnoll) if you healed her instead.

I never said that it would prevent the war. I said "hinder". Killing the powerful ally of the instigator of the war will certainly hinder it. And as for the paladin, maybe, maybe not. You don't really know about the numbers involved, but it is a "war" which tends to involve hundreds or thousands. Assuming the paladin would be able to stop them would be expecting a lot.


"If he's struck down by Torm's power, as is possible, then the humans will be able to escape and certainly it will be more difficult for Obould to manage his war."

You see, I suppose I disagree that striking down the gnoll would ACTUALLY allow the humans to escape.

Even still, it would only allow them to escape the gnoll, the odds of them actually escaping to freedom/safety are still negligable.
...
That doesn't relate to my post. I'm honestly curious: why did you quote me?

[Citizen Joe]

That's just inhumane. You have a chance to help either of them and give it up because it would "diminish a sacrifice" or "deny others a chance to stand with honor"? I'd hate to see you as a combat medic.

"I'm sorry, soldier, but saving you from your fatal wounds would diminish your sacrifice. Any emotional last words you want me to pass on?"

"Yes. F*** you."

No, I said a GOD should not do that. And take note of who that god is... Torm... If it was Ilmater, then yea, ease suffering. Torm is all about duty, loyalty and obedience. Torm also hates Bane... Bane was usurped by Cyric... Thus Cyric's worshipers are a thorn in the side of Bane's worshipers. Enemy of my enemy and such. That bit about the curse causing vampirism is a bunch of malarky, it just doesn't work that way in the game. If the paladin makes it out without dying, then its all good. It looks like she took out all the vampires so there isn't really any danger there.

And then there is the trick question: "There is only power for one. Which do you use the power for?"
It is not the character's power to use, it is the god's.

The whole thing is the Kobiyashi Maru scenario, so coming up with an unorthodox solution is always viable.

[tainsouvra]

Listen, if the choice is between nothing and something the moral dilemma is gone. Therefore the children WILL be saved if you choose that and the paladin WILL survive if thats your choice. You can think whatever you want, but unless you follow the OP the discussion is moot... Unless, of course, it was a test of wisdom rather than a mere moral dilemma, in which case realizing that the children wouldn't truly be saved by killing the bandit leader would be a superlative insight. Taking it a bit further to realize that the bandit's contribution to the war would probably be less damaging than the vampire-fallen-paladin's immense powers combined with an army of spawn would, frankly, be passing with flying colors. While there is definitely a moral dilemma to the OP's question, the test was wisdom. A test of wisdom really should require looking beyond the obvious to find the truth of the situation, otherwise it's not wisdom being tested.

Using a bit of insight, the original question really leaves two options: Cure the paladin: Prevent the rise of an epic vampire lord. Gain the assistance of a powerful being of good. Fight a war alongside that being of good against an army of orcs and gnolls led by a powerful orc. Kill a gnoll leader: Possibly allow innocents to escape. Destroy a local threat. Fight a war against an army of orcs and vampire spawn led by a powerful orc and an epic vampire lord. The wise choice should be obvious at that point. It's the one that involves a heck of a lot less death and damnation.

[tainsouvra]

That bit about the curse causing vampirism is a bunch of malarky, it just doesn't work that way in the game. So you're saying that it's not possible for a DM to have ruled that the off-camera villain created a curse that causes an energy drain over a period of time rather than an immediate death? You have incredible faith in things that do not deserve such dedication :smallamused:

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well in this case, the death of their leader by the wrath of god scares the Gnolls into fleeing post haste. Of course, they're left in a rather hostile environment about to go to war.

Also, I made the unpleasant coda that Saverok (the archvillain) just sent another advisor.
Ooh, so this actually ties into the Bhaalspawn saga? I recognized the name Iron Throne, of course, but it's really Sarevok who's pulling the strings?

Interesting...I don't suppose the Kryptgardens happen to be tied into to a certain nocturnal thieves' guild, do they?

I know this is all tangential to the topic, but I've already given and justified my answer, so

[PaladinBoy]

I'd save the girl. I agree with most of the reasons for doing so that have already been said. Specifically, I think that while I can't cure the curse, I can probably kill the gnolls. And we don't even know that the prisoners will be killed. There's always the chance that a rescue will be possible.

I do agree that this isn't exactly a problem with one right answer, though. Very interesting dilemma!

[ArtifexFelicis]

Looking at it this, it sort of depends for me. And This is kind of a "from my head and not really looking at game rules" style thing.

The paladin is good, would be awesome etc etc etc if she got saved. She's a good chick in general, and also a high level, as evidenced by killing so many vampires and also becoming a very good knight as well. In general it would be a very good thing if she was saved, and from a game standpoint probably better to have the high level char who could cut a giant scythe through the enemy ranks later during the war. It is, from the game standpoint, probably better to choose this.

But the gnoll is the better option I think. This is a pool that saw far enough into this woman's life to know that she would be very very good later in life. This same gnoll could be far more then meets the eye, as in war situations tactics are vital. With some probability, this gnoll is probably the equivalent of a nuclear bomb of tactics. A Desert Fox, an Ender, a Darth Revan a Hannibal, someone who is powerful in their own right, but able to effectively out maneuver and destroy anyone that would oppose them. From a realistic standpoint, saving someone who deserves it is all well and good, but I sure as hell wouldn't want someone like that commanding the enemy forces.

From the gut, I'd kill the gnoll. From the gaming idea, the paladin.

[Chronos]

On the original dilemma:

My first response was to save the knight. We have a choice between saving one champion of Good and preventing the rise of a champion of Evil, or of just striking down one champion of Evil. Further, it sounds like the paladin is likely more powerful than the gnoll: She's managed to take out a whole den of vampires, and she had to have been top-notch to be able to overcome the prejudices against her. So saving her accomplishes more good than smiting the gnoll.

On reading the points raised by other folks, my response just becomes stronger. There are many other options for dealing with the gnoll (including my group or the paladin we saved going after him personally), but there are few other options for the paladin. Accomplishing two good deeds is better than accomplishing only one of them.

On the elves versus humans, my idea (like many others') was for the humans to take up the elven lifestyle and live sustainably among them. They do have a right to have a home, but they do not necessarily have a right to the same sort of home that their ancestors had.

And on the orc question, my idea (likewise like many others) was for the local "civilized" nations to take up fair trade with the orcs and undercut the bandits. The orcs' underlying attitudes may or may not change: They might still care for nothing beyond their own profit. But orcs profiting isn't in and of itself a bad thing, so long as it's not at the expense of others, and if they're profiting more by peaceful trade than by violent slaughter, well that's a win-win.

[Kizara]

I never said that it would prevent the war. I said "hinder". Killing the powerful ally of the instigator of the war will certainly hinder it. And as for the paladin, maybe, maybe not. You don't really know about the numbers involved, but it is a "war" which tends to involve hundreds or thousands. Assuming the paladin would be able to stop them would be expecting a lot.


...
That doesn't relate to my post. I'm honestly curious: why did you quote me?

Second point: Complete mistake, I was responding to blanks. Sorry for the confusion.

[Charles Phipps]

So you're saying that it's not possible for a DM to have ruled that the off-camera villain created a curse that causes an energy drain over a period of time rather than an immediate death? You have incredible faith in things that do not deserve such dedication :smallamused:

Yes, the Curse is specifically a gift from Velsharoon (Faerun's God of the Undead). Of course, some player characters might object that the gods in my game ACTUALLY DO THINGS aside from grant spells and appear in avatar form as monsters to slay.

:smallbiggrin:

Apparently, only the Dark Powers should be able to do that. I incorporate a lot of divine curses and blessings in my game.


Ooh, so this actually ties into the Bhaalspawn saga? I recognized the name Iron Throne, of course, but it's really Sarevok who's pulling the strings?

Interesting...I don't suppose the Kryptgardens happen to be tied into to a certain nocturnal thieves' guild, do they?

I know this is all tangential to the topic, but I've already given and justified my answer, so

Since the games are non-canon, I've liberally been ripping off Bioware for the benefit of my games. Sarevok is, right now, the PC's archnemesis with one of them carrying the Curse of Bhaal in his blood. I'm tying him into half-a-dozen major plots going on in the 3E Realms.

and yes, they in fact are. :-)

After Sarevok is defeated, I may just have the PCs end up in Neverwinter. Remember, bad writer's steal. Good, homage.

[Citizen Joe]

Unless, of course, it was a test of wisdom rather than a mere moral dilemma,

Well then, that being the case, I stand by my NEITHER statement. You are given a choice A or B but not A and B. Knowing that it is a riddle testing your wisdom you know that anyone could through shear luck pick either A or B. It did not ask you to explain, only to choose. There is no wisdom in flipping a coin, thus there is no wisdom in picking either of the two obvious answers. The real wisdom must lie in a third option.

Now keep in mind that the party JUST went through a test of honor and valor. What honor lies in snuffing out your foe with the whim of a god? What valor lies robbing a paladin of her greatest quest? The wisdom is understanding honor and valor and not taking the easy way out and having a god do your dirty work. Did you not learn anything from the first two tests?

[Charles Phipps]

Now keep in mind that the party JUST went through a test of honor and valor. What honor lies in snuffing out your foe with the whim of a god? What valor lies robbing a paladin of her greatest quest? The wisdom is understanding honor and valor and not taking the easy way out and having a god do your dirty work. Did you not learn anything from the first two tests?

Overall, in this case, that argument would only result in the natural extreme of the fact that a Paladin or Cleric shouldn't channel their gods power at ALL. In this case, the test allows them to effectively cast a spell to do said action. That's definitely a good attitude for a God of War or Destiny probably.

I wouldn't rule killing Natch Kreiger as evil though. The Flind has already slaughtered a bunch of people and enslaved others. Killing him from a position hidden and without possibility of reprisal is stealthful and unfair but no one said characters had to be.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Remember, bad writer's steal. Good, homage.
Yeah, I kinda gathered that was your philosophy from lurking the WotC boards. Anyway, that's neat.

[Citizen Joe]

Overall, in this case, that argument would only result in the natural extreme of the fact that a Paladin or Cleric shouldn't channel their gods power at ALL. In this case, the test allows them to effectively cast a spell to do said action. That's definitely a good attitude for a God of War or Destiny probably.


A paladin or cleric should be a conduit of his god's power. They should do the bidding of their god, not the other way around. The "God Pool" is asking them to play god. The correct response is humility.



I wouldn't rule killing Natch Kreiger as evil though. The Flind has already slaughtered a bunch of people and enslaved others. Killing him from a position hidden and without possibility of reprisal is stealthful and unfair but no one said characters had to be.
Ummm... honor and valor god asking the question? How can an unfair sneaky backstabbity answer POSSIBLY be the correct answer to a god of honor and valor?

Keep in mind that this isn't a one time thing. If they get the answer right, they get an artifact (The rod thingy). So this is more of a question of how will they use that artifact?

Going off on another tangent... lets say Torm could just whack the guy. Why hasn't he just offed all the evil people in the world? For that matter, why hasn't Bane whacked all the good people? Because there are rules the gods follow. Primarily using their followers to accomplish their goals. If Torm whacked Natch Krieger, then Cyric would be like "Oooh... gloves are off then? Alright... Whack, kill, off the head of Torm's church..." Then there would be retaliation back and forth until AO has to step in and strip them both of their powers. No, using godly power to whack a flind is a bad idea.

Now, the same can be said for the curse... That is TOTALLY out of bounds on the part of the god that cursed the paladin. Torm swooping in to save the paladin wouldn't be any better than Cyric's tit for tat. Again, god spat with Ao stepping in... another bad idea.

Ao doesn't like to step in, he's gotta pause his Xbox in the middle of a massive frag fest to deal with a couple of children that can't share their toys. If we're lucky, the gods would just get a time out. But I've seen households where the toy (Toril) is destroyed to prevent the conflict. And then Ao can go back to ganking newbs.

[Charles Phipps]

Going off on another tangent... lets say Torm could just whack the guy. Why hasn't he just offed all the evil people in the world?

In game terms, I'd say that the Sacred Pool allows Communion with Torm plus a Limited Wish.

I think that really loses some of the flavor, though, doesn't it?

[Nerd-o-rama]

I'm pretty sure gods are allowed occasional plot devices, as the campaign needs. But that's a possibly prudent way to look at it in character.

[Citizen Joe]

It could be worse... everyone may respond with "I make a wisdom check..." or "I take 20 on my wisdom check" (that's actually a lot like going to these forums for the answer.

Here's a pesky one... "I cast augury three times... 'Kill flind? weal or woe'... 'Save paladin? weal or woe'... 'Neither? weal or woe..."

That's like Torm in a conference call with you and you call him on his cell phone...:smallbiggrin:

[Woland]

Let the paladin die, sic your new level-adjusted vampadin on the orcs, and use the pool to refill your water skins.

[Citizen Joe]

It could go down like this:

After fighting their way through many travails, the party enters a room with a well.

GM: The waters swirl around to form a...
Fighter: AACK... Initiative... It's some sort of water elemental
Sorcerer: I'm on it... Cone of Cold... I freeze it solid then Fytor can shatter it.
Cleric: I Flamestrike it...
Rogue: If it's still there after that, I'll use this scroll of Banishment...

Moments later..

Fighter: I don't see any rod in here, looks like it's a bust.
Sorcerer: Maybe we missed a secret door
Rogue: I'm on it... I'm taking 20 on search for every five foot square on the way out.

--------

On a more serious note, from the GM's perspective, either answer is 'correct' but the other person has the rod. So, kill the flind and the party has to go fight a powerful vampire that has an artifact in her command. Save the paladin and there's a army of orcs with an artifact enhanced priest at the heart.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Hmm...


If it were me, I'd offer m'self as a sacrifice and ask for the extra power to be used to help both the paladin and the prisoners. IF you can do that, it's the best thing to do.

[Blanks]

Unless, of course, it was a test of wisdom rather than a mere moral dilemma
Perhaps the OP meant it as a test of wisdom. Perhaps. But he chose a very weird name for his post then.



Everyone seems to assume that if you save the paladin she starts helping you and that all three groups (party, paladin, people) are sufficiently close for this to happen. For all the players know the paladin could be on another plane or something... ?

I think this discussion is hindered very much by everybody having different assumptions about the situation.

[TimeWizard]

The test of wisdom lies in your understanding and reasoning of the problem, not your answer.

I have chosen to answer all questions in character, NE Human Assassin.

For the Elf/Human question, I chose Isreali- I mean humans, becuase I accept that neither side has total dominion, and because I am a human and therefore my mindset is default on their side due to predjudice. I am incapable of being impartial to the decision.

For the Life/Death question, I have to choose the Gnoll, becuase as an Evil PC I know the paladin can not be indebted to me without some kind of paladin ban; and as a question of pragmatism, I slow the human pogrom deciding that it will save more lives in the long run then one albeit powerful vampire.

For the Orc/Slave question- I do not suffer excuses about the positive effects of slave trading on a village, so I side against the orc village and their associates.

[Doresain]

timewizard had a good idea...

the question is, as a NE dread necromancer, do i have enough teleporting in order to a) let the paladin turn to gain a powerful ally later on, b) kill the flind and let his underlings and slaves slaughter each other, thus leaving me with spare parts and finally c) bring my new legions of undead to the orc chief in order to become his newest right hand man...then eventually turn on him

[Citizen Joe]

As a rogue, the question is not how can these events be turned to my advantage, but what answer will get me the part of the Rod I'm looking for?

[Beleriphon]

Charles was the original situation meant to be two true to life, happening now situations or are we talking purely hypotethical koan style questions? If its the latter than the situation becomes much muddier since neither will actually achieve any real effect (thus eliminating the save one teleport to the other answer since neither event is occurring) and actually forces people question their own motives.

Looking at the things here I'd be inclined to save the paladin, but then the paladin would want me to save the villagers. I'll go with smiting the flind, only because that's what the paladin would want in the long run.

[undercat]

I find it interesting that most people are referring to the paladin as a 'girl'. Despite the fact that she's an exemplary, powerful force for good, it's not that that matters, but her sex (indeed, she's prolly too old to be a girl, a term that's really not used for anyone past their v. early twenties). If the paladin had been male, would you have called him a boy, or something similar?

As for dilemmas, I'll follow the consensus and go with saving the paladin: unleasing a powerful vampire on the realms has rather more the potential for causing bad things than skirmishes in the North, a benefit is assured, murdering the goblin down dead is morally nebulous, and besides, you can gain an ally in the paladin and go rescue the prisoners next.

As for the elven forest, well, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and frankly, saying you have a claim to a piece of land because your distant ancestors lived there millenia ago is ridiculous. They'd certainly be laughed out of any modern court.

Edit: Ahh! Bad avatar.

[Chronos]

I find it interesting that most people are referring to the paladin as a 'girl'. Despite the fact that an exemplary, powerful force for good, it's not that that matters, but her sex (indeed, she's prolly too old to be a girl, a term that's really not used for anyone past their v. early twenties). If the paladin had been male, would you have called him a boy, or something similar?The original post first introduced her as "a girl", and described her as being no older than seventeen. What I'm wondering is, why are you assuming she's a paladin? The divine voice only says that she's a "knight".

[Citizen Joe]

The original post first introduced her as "a girl", and described her as being no older than seventeen. What I'm wondering is, why are you assuming she's a paladin? The divine voice only says that she's a "knight".

Actually, nothing in the original post said she was good either... The Knights of Samular could be an infernal order for all we know.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

My current groups reaction would be a lot more angry and confrontational. Something along the lines of "You're a GOD, you know what is the best decision, and, ****, you can do both anyways with no effort. This asking us is just jerking us around like puppets for your amusement, if you are all-powerful, you already know how we'll decide, so just let us in, or don't, but don't put innocent people at the mercy of our decisions when you have a guaranteed better option.

If we were forced to chose how to use the power, we would kill the paladin before she could transform, write the war off as inevitable, and use the power to strengthen good as a whole, probably through general increases to the fertility of the the farms in good-aligned lands, to help stave off starvation as a whole and enable the good nations to draw on more soldiers when the war hits. We don't do so well with following directions, especially when it is a lose-lose.

Yeah, I think our DM hates us.

[undercat]

The original post first introduced her as "a girl", and described her as being no older than seventeen. What I'm wondering is, why are you assuming she's a paladin? The divine voice only says that she's a "knight".

The Knights of Samular (a canonical FR organization), as I recall, are all paladins (although there is at least one fallen paladin in the order; he is discovered).

As for her age, I forgot it from the op. I still think it's somewhat disrespectful to refer to her as 'only' a girl, and were she male, you certainly wouldn't have seen 'boy'. I also would prefer to see more older protaganist-like peoples; must every hero bent on saving the world be 16? (JRPGs, I'm looking at you, but players can be just as bad).

Edit: Though her young age, in a way, does provide additional incentive for the pcs to help her. So eh.

[Woland]

Was just thinking...What happens if an undead paladin uses turn undead on him/herself?

[Jothki]

My current groups reaction would be a lot more angry and confrontational. Something along the lines of "You're a GOD, you know what is the best decision, and, ****, you can do both anyways with no effort. This asking us is just jerking us around like puppets for your amusement, if you are all-powerful, you already know how we'll decide, so just let us in, or don't, but don't put innocent people at the mercy of our decisions when you have a guaranteed better option.

Beat me to it, sort of.

If this was the Test of Honor then your decision might be a complicated one, but you've already passed that test. What you see in the pool is false, the Test of Wisdom is to understand that and ignore it.

[Kalirren]

I've always loved these threads that touch on the nature of "wisdom" and "what would you do if you were a god/had the god's power" and morality, especially kinds of morality that don't exist in our universe but do exist in, say, FR or Greyhawk. It's very interesting when gods have perspectives akin to that of having very high Sense Motive plus selectively keen perception towards issues that concern them, and cannot (all) see the future, unlike the predestination-like concept of, say, a Calvinist Christian God. In this case, the concept of a god giving a believer a trial actually does make sense.

The funny thing is, as has been mentioned before, that it's still all just a set-up. No one in real life has that sort of power or is ever put in that sort of situation without a significant amount of setup. Putting your players through a situation like this is like putting them through a game show, and just like in a game show, if they don't play by the rules as written by the game show host (the DM), they don't get to keep any of their winnings.

In the end, the trial of wisdom here is not about making the "right choice" at all. It's about the temptation of power and the associated pride of accepting power. The fact remains that lots of evil, unfortunate things end up happening no matter what you do, no matter if you're aware of them or not. What about all the other countless injustices and unfortunate social realities that DM Torm isn't (explicitly) showing you? And even if these were somehow the only two blips on Torm Good-radar that showed up, how could you possibly appraise the consequences of your choice? The error lies not in making the wrong choice, but in assuming you have the wisdom/knowledge/awareness to use Torm's power responsibly at all when you, as a mortal, don't.

In the end, I've only seen/heard of one good answer to this conundrum, which is so often presented especially in the context of a DM trying to give the paladin the stage. You relinquish control of the god's power to the god. Simple as that. That is the answer we can all identify with in the end, because no one in real life has ever held a god's power.

[Premier]

Beat me to it, sort of.

If this was the Test of Honor then your decision might be a complicated one, but you've already passed that test. What you see in the pool is false, the Test of Wisdom is to understand that and ignore it.

I sort of agree with you there. However, taking the situation at face value, I personally would probably choose to save the paladin, mainly based on a reward/loss analysis.

With the paladin, if I invoke the god's power, I will ensure the survival and continued activity of a mighty crusader for Good. If I don't, then I ensure (since there's no other way of curing her) the presence and activity of a powerful monster.

With the prisoners, if I intervene, I'll make a war, described as already inevitable, somewhat less difficult to win. If I don't, the war will still happen, and it will be somewhat nastier, but there are plenty of heroes myself included who'll be able to try and do something about it.

[pendell]

Thinking about this ... while I stand by my earlier answer, I'm remembering the Giant's words (through Haley) a couple strips ago ...

"The art of the con man is in making you pick a shell at all".

In other words, the big mistake people make in a shell game is to assume that the premise of the game is being followed. It's not a question of picking a right shell, it's a matter of picking a shell at all.

I have this nasty suspicion that, by even consenting to think through this problem within it's artificially imposed limits, I'm already failing the test.

I'm trying to think my way out of the artificially imposed box, but I'm failing my wis check. The only thing I can think of is to spend the pool's power on the Paladin, then make the rescue of the prisoners my next side quest.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Serenity]

Yeah, but would the God of Valor present you with a shell game con?

I'll also cast my vote for saving the paladin. Stop the rise of a very powerful agent of evil, instead securing a powerful agent of good who can possibly aid in the war effort. Destroying the gnoll doesn't guarantee the prisoners' escape and does little to affect the tide of the war.

[Jothki]

You're temporarily being given a tiny slice of godlike power, and asked how you would use it. The key is to ask yourself what Pelor would do if he was faced with the same situation. And then to realize that he is being faced with the same situation, and his decision is obvious.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Offer yourself as a sacrifice for the greater good, attain unknown martyrdom and save both of the situations?


Or maybe use that godlike power to attain MORE godlike power and save both sits?