Moral conundrum

[Maryring]

So I am planning a moral problem for my players. As part of their main quest, they have stumbled across a villian whose plans they aren't quite sure what is, but they do know that he's proven himself capable of murder and slavery, so whatever it is, it can't be good.

Next time they run into him personally, it will be shortly before he and several of his elite will be going to enact one of their special rituals. They failed to stop such a ritual one time before, which left the cleric they travelled with very weakened.

Now, since said villian has no desire to fight the PCs, he will create a portal towards a small village, and send one of his minions through it to destroy it, in hopes that it shall keep the heroes busy. The heroes know that said minion is strong enough to do so easily, and that if they do not interfere, he will most likely torture the villagers to death.

So my question is this. What would you, in a GOOD party, do in such a situation. Would you follow the minion to save the village from an incredibly painful death, or would you try to stop the ritual, knowing that it has the potential to kill far more people in the long run.

Assume that the group is unprepared, and thus have no quick methods of travel. Splitting up would mean that whomever they sent through the portal, even if he could stand up against the minion one on one, would probably be lost for quite some time.

[electricbee]

If you're going to present the players of the game with a no win scenario, i think you should be willing to bend over backwards to allow them to think outside the box and resolve the scenario.

Perhaps they can steal a widget necessary for the ritual, forcing the big bad to follow them as they chase down the minion.

Maybe they can chase down the minion and knowing the natureof the ritual, mystically buttress whatever it is attacking.

Presenting them with the option of either choosing to split up (and distrupt the game) or select a multiple choice losing option doesn't sound very fun.

[Kylarra]

It's a no-brainer for the majority of my characters. Assuming I'm confident enough in our ability to actually stop the ritual, take out the BBEG now, hopefully during their exposition where they try to explain about the town.

[kamikasei]

Stop the ritual. If you let the villains lead you around by the nose you're completely screwed.

[valadil]

Depends on the character in question (which in my book makes this a good moral conundrum to use in D&D).

I think the idealist would go for the village, assuming he'd find a way to stop the eventuality of the villain killing more people later.

The realist would argue for going after the villain now. Better to let a village die than to later letter a thorpe, hamlet, or city get tortured to death. However, the realist would also be susceptible to the argument that the party may not have the ability to stop the villain, while the village is a goal they can achieve.

The troublemaker would assume that disrupting the villain's plans is the best way to fight the villain and will ignore the village on this basis. I think the troublemaker could also be a realist or idealist.

Other factors to consider. How personally familiar are the players with the villain, the minion, and the village? If they've stayed in the village and met its people, I can't imagine the players would ignore the chance of it being destroyed (of course this assumes they know which village the portal goes to and that the villain can successfully pick a village they care about). They might also have a vendetta against the minion.

There's also the possibility that they'll stand around discussing things while village is destroyed and ritual gets carried out.

[Kylarra]

Pragmatically, it doesn't require a very high level minion to level the average tiny village and a BBEG with the resources can be continually 'gating in minions to take out villages, so unless there is some sort of personal attachment to the village, the BBEG is generally your best bet.

[kamikasei]

I think the idealist would go for the village, assuming he'd find a way to stop the eventuality of the villain killing more people later.

Once you do that, though, you've given the villain a tactic that can completely shut you down any time he needs to. Buy a murderer once and you're guaranteed lifetime service, etc.

I think the moral choice is quite clear here. The real issue is whether a given character can bring himself to make it.

[Maryring]

If they do figure out a third option, all the more power to them, but it will be presented as a choice between "saving someone definately now, and risk whatever nefarious plan to be completed later" and "sacrificing someone to a gruesome death now, to end the threath that the villian is right now".

They know very little about the villian, but they do know the minion. He's tried to make the fighter join their team before *but only the fighter knows that*, and has shown little regard for those he considers lesser.

There is also the fact that said villian is strong. They last found him in control of seven very powerful fey creatures whom they had to liberate.

[stenver]

If you're going to present the players of the game with a no win scenario, i think you should be willing to bend over backwards to allow them to think outside the box and resolve the scenario.

Perhaps they can steal a widget necessary for the ritual, forcing the big bad to follow them as they chase down the minion.

Maybe they can chase down the minion and knowing the natureof the ritual, mystically buttress whatever it is attacking.

Presenting them with the option of either choosing to split up (and distrupt the game) or select a multiple choice losing option doesn't sound very fun.

I completely disagree.

[Chen]

Is the party capable of taking out the villain and minion if they split up? If so thats the logically best choice (and generally bad for the game). Could someone sacrifice themselves to allow the villagers to escape by delaying with the minion if they are unable to defeat it? That could also work if the people are heroic/good enough.

Could they prevent the minion from getting through the portal in the first place? While its dramatic for the villain to do this in front of the heroes its prone to disruption or just plain rail-roading if you make it impossible to prevent it. What about grappling the Villain and taking him through the portal to the village with you and the minion?

Also depending on the characters and what the villain knows, is it a reasonable plan? How "good" are these characters? Seems like a risky gamble to send a minion away if the party is just going to kill you regardless.

[valadil]

Once you do that, though, you've given the villain a tactic that can completely shut you down any time he needs to. Buy a murderer once and you're guaranteed lifetime service, etc.

For a time. I think an idealistic PC would assume they could stop this trick any number of times until they figured out how to prevent the villain from opening portals.

[kamikasei]

There is also the fact that said villian is strong. They last found him in control of seven very powerful fey creatures whom they had to liberate.

If they think they don't have a good chance of beating the villain now but would at a future confrontation, then that makes protecting the village this time a more justifiable choice.

But don't look at it as the party sacrificing anyone. The villain is the one sending minions to destroy villages simply to get his way. It's not the players' responsiblity to prevent all harm befalling anyone in the entire world.

For a time. I think an idealistic PC would assume they could stop this trick any number of times until they figured out how to prevent the villain from opening portals.

True, similar to the issue of having a better chance of beating the villain in a future encounter, they may have a better chance of countering this specific tactic once they're more powerful. Of course, that can't prevent the villain from setting up other kinds of dead man's switches.

[Maryring]

They should be able to prevent it from happening another time though, since they do have the chance to prepare themselves with dim anchor. Since it is rare for them to need it though, I doubt that they'll have a scroll of it with em.

[PersonMan]

For a time. I think an idealistic PC would assume they could stop this trick any number of times until they figured out how to prevent the villain from opening portals.

And by then how much damage will the villain have done? How many rituals of PLOT or enhanced power will the villain have completed?

[kamikasei]

They should be able to prevent it from happening another time though, since they do have the chance to prepare themselves with dim anchor. Since it is rare for them to need it though, I doubt that they'll have a scroll of it with em.

As I edited in to my above post in response to valadil: they can stop the villain from teleporting minions off to do mischief in future, but they can't stop him from having minions already primed to do the mischief. "Every time I conduct one of these rituals, I'll have my minions lying in wait go to a random village and destroy it in a horrible fashion unless you go to Prearranged Location X and stand on your heads while singing 'Gosh, The Villain is So Sexually Potent'..."

[Gnaeus]

A good aligned group could do either one.

The most important thing here, IMO, is not to make the moral, character driven decision a tool to beat up PCs with the ugly spiked club that is the alignment system. Paladins and clerics should not fall as a result of their PC's choice in this kind of dilemma (unless their god had a specific outlook that they chose to ignore).

"My alignment is XY so I think I should do this" is perfectly acceptable reasoning.

"Your alignment is XY so you should do this" is not.

And of course, you as the DM should be prepared for them to make either choice or to split up.

[electricbee]

I completely disagree.

That was constructive, helpful, and added meaningfully to the dialogue.

[Noedig]

I rather like the choice that has been presented to them. As to the choice, if I knew the BBEG was much stronger than myself and the party, I'd go and kill the minion. This seems the logical choice.

Alternatively if your good party is willing to get a little dirty, they can capture the minion, torture him, read his mind or some how obtain the location of the BBEG from him, and then teleport in and ruin his little ritual.

[Maryring]

As I edited in to my above post in response to valadil: they can stop the villain from teleporting minions off to do mischief in future, but they can't stop him from having minions already primed to do the mischief. "Every time I conduct one of these rituals, I'll have my minions lying in wait go to a random village and destroy it in a horrible fashion unless you go to Prearranged Location X and stand on your heads while singing 'Gosh, The Villain is So Sexually Potent'..."

He could be lying about it too though. It's a villian, they're supposed to lie, hence the proof of sending Babyeater mcBlooddrinker through the portal before em.

And no spiky clubs of beating. It's supposed to be a fun moral challenge, to counteract all the political and fighting stuff they've done recently.

[kamikasei]

He could be lying about it too though. It's a villian, they're supposed to lie, hence the proof of sending Babyeater mcBlooddrinker through the portal before em.

This evil, lying, Babyeater-employing villain sounds like the kind of guy a ragtag group of heroes should take down.

Alternatively if your good party is willing to get a little dirty, they can capture the minion, torture him, read his mind or some how obtain the location of the BBEG from him, and then teleport in and ruin his little ritual.

I get the impression they know exactly where the BBEG is: standing a short distance away from them.

[Yukitsu]

Generally, I'd plane shift over to the minion, but leave the party to face the BBEG. Then I'd nova the minion very publicly, very excessively and to such a degree that future minions would think twice about following that order. I usually have faith that the party could defeat the BBEG without me.

Edit: though there were two occassions where the party went after the minion, and I got to solo the BBEG.

[stenver]

That was constructive, helpful, and added meaningfully to the dialogue.

Spoiler

Show

Presenting them with the option of either choosing to split up (and distrupt the game) or select a multiple choice losing option doesn't sound very fun.

I think that making hard choices are very fun. Simply following a railroad, where everything is WIN and every choice is obvious is terribly boring.

Of course. If GM punishes them for choosing a lesser evil between 2 evils, then it becomes crap. For example, i believe that a paladin, faced with this situation, should not become an ex paladin.

But making players choose between their home village or stopping a villain is something that can really make PC think and give a special kind of flavor to the game. Nothing in the real world is always win-win. I like to bring it to the D&D as well.

Tough choices make game interesting.

And of course, THIS is the time, when players get creative and maybe think something up to make it a bit more of a win-win, without splitting up.

[valadil]

And by then how much damage will the villain have done? How many rituals of PLOT or enhanced power will the villain have completed?

Oh absolutely. In this case it's a question of who can accomplish more during the amount of time between encounters. If the players are no better off the next time they face him, they have no reason to wait. If they can catch up to him in terms of power (or ability to deal with minion portals), waiting may pay off.

[Mastikator]

To me it seem like an obvious choice to go for the village. The previous ritual left one guy severely weekend, so whatever the next ritual is, it's not as bad as an entire village tortured to death.

Also, even if they go after the BBEG, which they don't even know if they can take out, and in fact have failed to do in the past, they still have to go after his minion, which they think they can take out. Before or after it destroys the village.

Minions that can singlehandedly take out entire villages don't grow on trees. This is not some trump card the BBEG can pull any time. For all they know it's his most powerful minion.

[Yukitsu]

Actually any level 11 or higher caster can pull as many of those minions as they want.

[Mastikator]

Do we know that the BBEG is a level 11+ caster? I didn't seen any mention of that, I can only make judgments based on known facts.

[hamishspence]

The original post said:

They failed to stop such a ritual one time before, which left the cleric they travelled with very weakened.

and

Would you follow the minion to save the village from an incredibly painful death, or would you try to stop the ritual, knowing that it has the potential to kill far more people in the long run.

implying that whatever the consequences of the ritual, it's more than just "leaving the cleric very weakened".

[Lin Bayaseda]

Usually, in the movies, when the hero is faces with this dilemma, he somehow manages to both save the girl and get the villain. For he is Bruce Wayne and Batman.

Rather than a lose-lose scenario that will make the players feel bad no matter what they do, give them at least a fighting chance to have it both ways.

[Mastikator]

The original post said:
implying that whatever the consequences of the ritual, it's more than just "leaving the cleric very weakened".

Potential also implies uncertainty. You may choose to stop the BBEG from a ritual that perhaps will kill many, or maybe it won't, and last time you tried you failed. Or you may choose to stop his minion who will certainly kill an entire village, and you're pretty certain you can stop him.
Real people trumps hypothetical people.

[nedz]

I would expect most parties to do 2 things.
1) Send a message (or some PONTI* messanger) to the village to tell them to scatter.
2) Stop the ritual.

Obviously 2 is more important, and 1 might not be possible.

Its always interesting to see how these decisions pan out though.

* PONTI = Person Of No Tactical Importance