Looking for philosophical debates to test my players

[Morithias]

The demon king campaign is going well so far. My players show interest in it, and I've started to design and work on the setting as a whole.

The campaign revolves around the old D&D question of "is it okay to kill evil creatures like demons if they are helpless/surrender".

This philosophical question takes form as they are defending the prisoner, their 16 year old childhood friend named "Miki" who is the reincarnation of the god of fiends, who if she fully awakens will unite the netherworld and conquest all of reality. She is currently a NG healer.

This raises the question of, if the angels and paladins who want to kill her or throw her in a dungeon under mind control to control her uprising are misguided or evil, since the last two times the god of fiends raised it killed off two pantheons of gods. (Yeah the god of fiends is basically the snarl if it was a 16 year old girl, and intelligent, so it's actually MORE dangerous).

So far the second philosophical question I have come up with to challenge my players is "the intelligent should rule".

This takes the form of the first empire they come across, the empire of Zeth. In Zeth magic users rule, when a child is born they are tested and attempted to be taught magic, in other words if your intelligent score is high enough you will learn to cast.

Edit: I think I was unclear here due to another post. You don't NEED to go full spellcaster, you're free to leave to pursue other interests after your first spell. It's more a matter of testing your mental functions, kinda like a magical IQ test.

If you're too dumb to learn magic though? Enjoy your life as a second class slave. Used for manual labor and not allowed to vote in the elections.

This raises the debate of a "Geniocracy/Noocracy" government. Is there a justified argument is letting the intelligent rule over those who frankly are too dumb to live? Is this system really so bad if it keeps people like Peter Griffin from causing damage to the society as a whole?

I am looking for more ideas for future debates to test my players. What kind of philosophical and sociopolitical ideas/debates have you used and tested your players with? Do you have any good philosophical debates you think would make good tests to make my players think about the world at large?

DO NOT USE THIS THREAD TO ARGUE. I am looking for IDEAS to test MY players with, not looking to cause a huge flame war.

[kaomera]

The campaign revolves around the "prisoner's dilemma" the old D&D question of "is it okay to kill evil creatures like demons if they are helpless/surrender".

That's not the Prisoner's dilemma... If anything it's ''the prisoners dilemma'', or maybe ''the PCs-who-have-taken-a-prisoner's dilemma''... In any case, using a well-established term like ''the Prisoner's dilemma'' may result in some confusion and possibly unhelpful responses. I can't personally offer that much helpful advice on your actual question because I've never found players who were particularly receptive to this kind of ethical Catch-22 (either because of general disinterest or my won inability to run such a scenario in a fun way), and have mostly avoided such things.

[Aidan305]

I'm not really going to answer, but what I will do is post a link to the Tales of Wyre.

It's a story that "began" when the paladin decided not to simply kill the fiend because she was evil, but to accept her surrender and attempt to redeem her.

It got Epic. And raises many more interesting philosophical points along the way, such as "Is it evil to summon and control devils?"

[Morithias]

That's not the Prisoner's dilemma... If anything it's ''the prisoners dilemma'', or maybe ''the PCs-who-have-taken-a-prisoner's dilemma''... In any case, using a well-established term like ''the Prisoner's dilemma'' may result in some confusion and possibly unhelpful responses. I can't personally offer that much helpful advice on your actual question because I've never found players who were particularly receptive to this kind of ethical Catch-22 (either because of general disinterest or my won inability to run such a scenario in a fun way), and have mostly avoided such things.

My apologies...that's what it was called in the Counter Monkey episode, or maybe I misunderstood the episode.

They're not really Catch-22 scenarios. I'm looking for questions where there is no "right" answer. Where both sides have a point, I want my players to basically argue at the table (in character) and see how they react to things like the intelligent oppressing the stupid, and other debates.

If they aid the rebels in Zeth. They will gain the aid of a unit of warblades in their final battle to protect the Demon King when the do the ritual to cure her, if they side with the Zeth ruler, they gain the aid of a unit of warmages.

Either side will get them to their goal, it just matters on what side do the players choose is the "right" one, cause in the end, in these debate there is no 100% right answer.

[erikun]

Take any philosophical idea, then convert it into an adventure. Wikipedia might be a good place to start, if you're not familiar with any. Just a couple to think of:

The Ship of Theseus could be used for a magical artefact that held power for the king, as was stolen. Upon tracking it down, the characters discover that it has been remodeled several times, with various jewelers replacing parts of the artefact over the years. Does the party take the time to track down the 'real' artefact that was stolen, or do they gather up the assorted replacement parts and put them together? Which is the real one?

Taking an idea from Turing tests, an ailing king is failing mentally, and is subjecting him/herself to enchantments that produce actions that she would do if mentally able. However, some people find out about this, and believe that the wizard placing the enchantments is controlling the king (or that the enchantments themselves are just requesting more enchantments).

Missing square puzzle might make for a good puzzle-room.

A Schrödinger's cat could make for an interesting monster or encounter - something that, if viewed, would be one possibility or another, but if not analyzed could potentially be both. It could work as a social situation; if a ruler has support of the priest guild because he is believed to be alive and support from the necromancer guild because he is believed to be a lich, then revealing which is the truth (even making a point to find out) would cause one of the groups to revolt against the state.

[Waddacku]

Apologies for not being of help. I'd just like to point out I saw what you did there, Morithias, and I find the use of it for a (presumably) serious game hilarious and applaud you.

[Telonius]

The Ship of Theseus could be used for a magical artefact that held power for the king, as was stolen. Upon tracking it down, the characters discover that it has been remodeled several times, with various jewelers replacing parts of the artefact over the years. Does the party take the time to track down the 'real' artefact that was stolen, or do they gather up the assorted replacement parts and put them together? Which is the real one?

You could use a variant on this with a Programmed Amnesia or Mindrape spell. A notorious criminal has been subjected to one of these spells and has no memories of his misdeeds. The characters were sent to track him down, but now that they've found him, is it really just to punish him?

[Morithias]

Apologies for not being of help. I'd just like to point out I saw what you did there, Morithias, and I find the use of it for a (presumably) serious game hilarious and applaud you.

What? You mean the whole "Stealing ideas from a hentai videogame series and turning them into serious campaigns" thing?

You could use a variant on this with a Programmed Amnesia or Mindrape spell. A notorious criminal has been subjected to one of these spells and has no memories of his misdeeds. The characters were sent to track him down, but now that they've found him, is it really just to punish him?

That is a VERY good one, and it ties in VERY nicely to the core question of Miki's curse and the morality of killing people for things they haven't done. Miki is 100% innocent she has done nothing currently, her crime is in the future.

This man's crime is in the past, but he has no memory or understanding of what he did. His future is unclear.

I like it. Thanks Telonius.

[Waddacku]

That is exactly what I mean.

[Starshade]

Hm, an twist I could come up with, is the reincarnated god of fiend knows she was evil in an previous incarnation, currently don't know much more though, and works actively against evil, claiming she will never turn evil even if she remembered who she was.

[hamishspence]

The Anti-Antichrist trope is basically this. Adam from Pratchett & Gaiman's Good Omens, for example.

[sol_kanar]

An interesting dilemma I used in one campaign concerns hiding and/or destroying dangerous knowledge.

For example, let's suppose that we have a nation/town/region where the average standard of living is very high. People are well-fed, well-defended, and ruled by an elective council which really has the interest of the people at heart.
The only problem is that, before the council, the nation/town/region was ruled by a hereditary monarchy: the last king was basically a tyrant, so him and all his heirs (mostly children) have been poisoned and/or killed by his ministers, who later reformed the kingdom in a democracy.
The PCs might stumble upon a report of this events or even a long-lost heir to the king. The PCs know that if they spread the knowledge/if they reveal the heir, people might revolt against the council and a civil war might start.
So, what is the right thing to do in this context?

[Jay R]

1. This one might cause them some difficulty.

2. They slay some evil person. As he dies, he says, "Please .. get this magic sword back to my family. It's a family heirloom ... it's been in our family for generations, and without it, our family won't be able to ...." (He dies.)

[Or, in searching the dead body, they find his will, detailing exactly who he leaves all his equipment to. The money's supposed to go to an orphanage.]

[Morithias]

Hm, an twist I could come up with, is the reincarnated god of fiend knows she was evil in an previous incarnation, currently don't know much more though, and works actively against evil, claiming she will never turn evil even if she remembered who she was.

Everyone knows the god of fiends was evil in a previous incarnation. She's a NG healer who just wants to help people and protection. She can vow never to turn evil easily...

..however that vow doesn't give you a bonus to will saves, which is what she needs to make to keep the god's powers in check. You see Miki goes down what is known as the "path of six"; six stages of corruption until she finally turns fully evil.

And the worse part? Evil feels good. By the time she reaches stage six the NG Healer is long gone. Oh she still has her memories and friendships to the PC's, but that doesn't change that fact that she now considers "Join me as my generals or I will rip your souls from your bodies and bind them to statues in my castle" to be a fair offer to make to them.

[Peelee]

Soon to start a campaign of my own, where the main plotline revolves around finding a stopping a demilich (i realize I suck at making original plots) with multiple phylacteries. There also exists a floating island with with a city-state on it (again, I realize I suck at making original plots). Backstory is it was a highly oppressed village, until a powerful mage came along and created a large gem that lifted the village and the surrounding land into the sky, freeing them from the evil empire dominating them. It became peaceful and prosperous, with a statue of the mage holding the gemstone that keeps the island aloft.

Twist here is that the mage was the polymorphed demilich, and the crystal keeping the island up is his phylactery. In order to destroy the lich, the crystal must be destroyed, which would doom all the inhabitants of the city (ha! Halfway decent plotline for the win!).

Of course, it might not help much without the whole lich thing, since that means the gem HAS to be destroyed to permanently get rid of the evil. So take that as you will.

[Righteous Doggy]

Don't forget infrastructure! Is it really worth the trouble of assassinating or removing the current rulers? What if a bunch of shadowy cloaked figures were waiting in the background for the right time to step in and take the whole of civilization for themselves, or what if removing the leaders heads from society just threw everyone back to the dark ages without their power and push for progression. Maybe the infrastructure of the city was never held in the people the pcs go after, maybe their acts of rebellion only served to throw it into a worse state. War doesn't bring the best in people after all.

[Zonugal]

I am looking for more ideas for future debates to test my players. What kind of philosophical and sociopolitical ideas/debates have you used and tested your players with? Do you have any good philosophical debates you think would make good tests to make my players think about the world at large?

Throwing any standard decision modeled after a conflict between Utilitarianism & Deontology would do well. That is after all probably the biggest & most reoccurring debate in academic-based ethics (too which I received my undergraduate degree).

Besides any strict scenario, a really good morality challenge is looking at your player's characters' morality/philosophies themselves and merely pushing them to their limits.

A good morality challenge should end with the characters feeling awful, and the very best morality challenges should end in a manner reminiscent of a Greek tragedy.

[Cerlis]

reminds me of when during ophans week , you take a little blood elf girl to the temple of time, in which 2 guards (weapons ready) charge her. The Head (time) dragon stops them saying "The girl is innocent. She will not be punished for what she does....or fails to do....in the future."

Freaked me out. Expessially since she seemed rather crafty

[Righteous Doggy]

reminds me of when during ophans week , you take a little blood elf girl to the temple of time, in which 2 guards (weapons ready) charge her. The Head (time) dragon stops them saying "The girl is innocent. She will not be punished for what she does....or fails to do....in the future."

Bronze Dragonflight are True Nuetral though I thought. Its not whether you are good or evil, its whether your a threat to time/space itself. And their Infinity Dragonflight cousins follow an even more insane foreign logic.
When you get into other cultures you run into Morality disonance, then your in a different problem entirely. I mean dear god, the idea of removing the publics leaders and letting it all fall to barbaric savages? Or even allowing those neanderthals in charge of anything is blasphemy and insane!

[KnightDisciple]

I'm not really going to answer, but what I will do is post a link to the Tales of Wyre.

It's a story that "began" when the paladin decided not to simply kill the fiend because she was evil, but to accept her surrender and attempt to redeem her.

It got Epic. And raises many more interesting philosophical points along the way, such as "Is it evil to summon and control devils?"

Wow. I'm only 3 pages in, but indeed, epic.

I will say that at this point, 2 things detract a bit from my enjoyment.

1.)I wish the repenting succubus actually played a larger direct role in things.

2.)It feels sorta...I dunno. "Preachy" is too strong a word, but it definitely feels like intentionally or not, the players (especially the druid) were trying to "get a point across". Then again, maybe over-reading it.

Still awesome; wish I could be in a campaign 1/4 that detailed and awesome.

[moritheil]

Either side will get them to their goal, it just matters on what side do the players choose is the "right" one, cause in the end, in these debate there is no 100% right answer.

The thing is, DnD includes an end-run around irreducible problems of morality - the empirical solution. The paladin or cleric detects evil. Done. (Possible cross-checking with detect magic or more powerful magic if you're worried about Nondetection-type spells.)

I realize that's somewhat facetious and the DM can easily houserule around such things, but the flip side of the coin is that the alignment system is a simplified list of rules that is meant for quick and dirty assignment of NPCs and monsters to Team A, Team B, or Team C. It's not really intended as a framework for debates about whether good and evil are best considered ontological qualities, the result of nature or nurture, etc.

The end result of all of this forcing the players to do things that the rules don't clearly cover strikes me as being similar to telling them to get several digits of pi out of an abacus. Yeah, it can be done if you really know how to use an abacus. But it might be annoying to a lot of people because it's not the most convenient tool for the task; a modern calculator is better at that. And when people take a test nowadays, they expect to be able to use modern calculators; handing them abacuses will cause a small riot.

Besides any strict scenario, a really good morality challenge is looking at your player's characters' morality/philosophies themselves and merely pushing them to their limits.

I have to question whether it is the characters you are challenging there, or the players themselves. Consider the case of a thoroughly inarticulate player of a cleric with maxed Knowledge (Religion) ranks: his character can solve theological problems and propose various litmus tests for morality, but he cannot. Either the cleric becomes a DMPC, thus depriving the player of enjoyment by depriving him of control, or the player is forced to try to act like someone much more highly educated/articulate than he is, thus depriving the player (and possibly the group) of enjoyment by being far less competent than he person he is supposed to be and breaking suspension of disbelief.

The reverse situation, a very articulate and knowledgeable person with an uneducated/inarticulate character, strikes me as little better: either he helps the group, but breaks role by using his metagame knowledge, or he deliberately plays down to his character's level, and doesn't help the group despite knowing all the while that he could if he were allowed to.

A good morality challenge should end with the characters feeling awful, and the very best morality challenges should end in a manner reminiscent of a Greek tragedy.

Perhaps. But if true, this seems to run into a separate problem: in the groups I played DnD with, that was definitely not an acceptable feeling at the end of the night. I'm not saying that people universally don't want to see philosophy - only that you should be very careful to ensure that players are OK with the gaming experience you propose to give them.


All that said, I do have an ethical argument to propose for your players: is the system that offers absolute empirical knowledge of morality itself moral and ethical? That is, is the very fact that deities offer spells like detect good and detect evil, itself good and fair? Does it shoehorn some people into always acting evil, because that is what is expected of them?

[Zonugal]

I have to question whether it is the characters you are challenging there, or the players themselves. Consider the case of a thoroughly inarticulate player of a cleric with maxed Knowledge (Religion) ranks: his character can solve theological problems and propose various litmus tests for morality, but he cannot. Either the cleric becomes a DMPC, thus depriving the player of enjoyment by depriving him of control, or the player is forced to try to act like someone much more highly educated/articulate than he is, thus depriving the player (and possibly the group) of enjoyment by being far less competent than he person he is supposed to be and breaking suspension of disbelief.

The reverse situation, a very articulate and knowledgeable person with an uneducated/inarticulate character, strikes me as little better: either he helps the group, but breaks role by using his metagame knowledge, or he deliberately plays down to his character's level, and doesn't help the group despite knowing all the while that he could if he were allowed to.

I think this a problem beyond the sphere of just throwing ethically/moral challenges at a party. Any normal person is going to have a bit of difficulty portraying a Int 24 Wizard, its just a latent difficulty within role-playing.

I'd say if the DM sat down and requested each of the players reflect on their characters & try to explore the character's moral compass. It can be an amazing exercise for them and allows the DM to better encompass all their different perspectives.

Perhaps. But if true, this seems to run into a separate problem: in the groups I played DnD with, that was definitely not an acceptable feeling at the end of the night. I'm not saying that people universally don't want to see philosophy - only that you should be very careful to ensure that players are OK with the gaming experience you propose to give them.

I think this should be handled with a DM expressing certain expectations regarding how the game is going to branch off. But as long as each player is told that they (or their characters) may be challenged in a more personal way, I see no great problem with injecting a sense of tragedy into the game.

After all, sometimes if you want the characters to rise you need to pull them down first.

Also for the original poster, how about doing a an ethical situation taking inspiration from the Judea-Christian tale of Abraham but with the added perspective that Kierkegaard expands upon in Fear and Trembling? Basically you'd challenge a character of faith by having a message from their deity asking them to sacrifice an innocent.

[moritheil]

I think this a problem beyond the sphere of just throwing ethically/moral challenges at a party. Any normal person is going to have a bit of difficulty portraying a Int 24 Wizard, its just a latent difficulty within role-playing.

True, except that they'd have to seek out or agree to playing such a wizard in order to be confronted with the necessity of playing Int 24+. Dumping a moral dilemma on the party removes that agency, that ability of a player to choose to be tested in such a way or choose to not have to deal with it.

After all, sometimes if you want the characters to rise you need to pull them down first.

Sure, but we were speaking of downer endings.

Also for the original poster, how about doing a an ethical situation taking inspiration from the Judea-Christian tale of Abraham but with the added perspective that Kierkegaard expands upon in Fear and Trembling? Basically you'd challenge a character of faith by having a message from their deity asking them to sacrifice an innocent.

To be honest, I'd think this would be a nonissue for the most faithful characters unless their players were deliberately aiming at this kind of RP. I mean, most DnD parties already kill based on information provided by their deities (via divinations, all the way down to Detect Evil.) There already exists this kind of implicit trust. You're just asking the players to rationalize it.

[hamishspence]

I mean, most DnD parties already kill based on information provided by their deities (via divinations, all the way down to Detect Evil.) There already exists this kind of implicit trust. You're just asking the players to rationalize it.

Some of the books (and other sources) do say that this is not the way to stay Good-aligned- Dragon 358's Paladin Guide, Drow of the Underdark's discussions of how paladins cope in an Underdark setting, Eberron Campaign Setting's discussion of how not every Evil being deserves to be attacked by adventurers.

Not to mention the various ways of pinging Detect Evil without actually being Evil.

[Acanous]

Wait, which Hentai game series is this based off of?

Also, I played in a campaign with a floating island kept aloft by a magical sigil being used pull the entire plane into hell, with an unknown time limit.
My character trashed that sigil so fast, over half the party still hadn't decided on what to do with it before they were casting feather fall or Plane shift.
(The lives of those in the city, weighed against the lives of everything on the plane? The Needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.)

A Repentant villain against an avenging hero might be a good way to test them. Consider an evil man, who killed a wizard's brother. The man is now dying of a magical disease, and repents, regretting his earlier actions and donating his posessions and efforts into helping others.

The wizard CAST this disease upon the man, and sees his deathbed repentance as a cheap way of trying to escape hell, so he's offering the party some decent reward to watch this man, and use an item to alert the Wizard to his death, so the wizard can cast Trap the Soul and gueruntee this evil man never gets to heaven.

The man, however, seems genuinely sorry for his prior actions, explaining that he never knew what suffering was like until he became afflicted with this disease, and no longer detects as evil.

[Madeiner]

I like philisophical dilemmas very much and try to insert as many as i can IMC.

Here's something that i have put in my game:

- "Good" nation discovers that a "foreign" nation has probably been "slaved by demons". This is actually true, but good nation doesnt know it. Good nation wants to free "captured nation" because "captured nation" has technology, weapons, magical crystals. In "freeing" the captured nation, good nation annexes the former demon slaves and takes all their equipment. This was completely based on USA-Iraq scenario (good nation being the "United states of Midgar", and conquered nation was "Gnominia", the war was of course called "Operation Gnominia Freedom", i liked this cliche a lot)

- During the capture of the foreign nation, they found strange hostile mutated creatures in the sewers, that they correctly identify as former gnomes. One of them is not hostile and can still think as a gnome, and helps the party, even saves the life of one PC. The party finds an old photograph of this gnome and his fiancee. The party discovers that his fiancee died because of a structural collapse that THEY have caused while assaulting the city. The creature cries as it discovers that his fiancee is dead.
Later, after the city is conquered and days pass, this creature is studied, and is starting to degenerate, becoming a monster like all other creatures, incapable of thinking clearly. The creature will completely mutate in days.
What does the party do? My party considered releasing their "friend" to live with the other mutated creatures in the sewers, but in the end they decided to kill him quickly with a disintegrate, hoping not to make him suffer.

- The party finds an undead couple hiding in a ship with a small half-undead baby. The couple was turned undead by a monster when the mother was pregnant. The child was born after they were turned and is mostly undead and registers as evil.
The father has become evil, killing people trying to protect his wife and child from "adventurers" that wanted to destroy them because of their undead status. The mother also registers as evil, but her only concern was to keep her child safe.
My party talked for 2 real-life hours trying to decide what to do with them.
In the end, they decided to kill the father, exiling the mother, and sending the child to friends to be kept safe.
Years late, the child was "rescued" by the BBEG, who set him against the adventurers that killed his father, in an attempt to make them feel miserable for their pity (BBEG is not actually against the charaters, but is convinced that pity is what is destroying this world, currently invaded by demons)

- During a special mission inside an old utopian city led by a rogue AI, the paladin of freedom was sealed in a room while his friends were in the nearby room. The paladin could see them, but they couldn't see him. The party was attacked by harmless prisoners, mentally controlled and disguised as monsters. The paladin was told the truth, and was given two choices.
Either he let their friend slaughter the prisoners (he knew they would have done so, as the AI made them fight real monsters many times to leech their XP) and falling because of that, or he could use an artifact in the room, mentally controlling his friends and making them stop the attack, but breaking his paladin of freedom code, thereby falling.
The goal of the AI was to make him fall of course, because he was immune to her mental conditioning incantations.
(I have to say that i talked this with the paladin player before doing it, and he was ok with that)

I should have many more like that if you want to hear :)

[Tamer Leon]

Give them simple, but very heavily weighted, choices.
An idea that came from Bastion:
Give the party an NPC that starts off as an ally. Not a physically powerful person, but charismatic and intelligent. At some point, perhaps he becomes misinformed about something the PC's are doing and turns against them for it. You can give them simple options that will have drastic effects on the game world. Try to explain things, or retaliate? Or perhaps flee, and be hunted?

The easiest way to give players moral dilemmas (if they're actually into roleplay, at least) is to just give them plot-changing decisions.

Granted, if you're in a group that disregards roleplay in favor of just rolling dice, well.

That plan will screw you over quite a bit, because they'll just go through and torch everything and not particularly care.

[Morithias]

Wait, which Hentai game series is this based off of?

It's a series called "Rance" where you play as a sociopath hero who is for lack of a better term a serial rapist.

The Zeth idea came from "Rance VI" which I read about on Tv tropes. While the Demon King was stolen from "Sengoku Rance" which is one of the only games in the series to be translated to English.

I find any idea no matter where it's from is worth a good look over.

[Peelee]

Wait, which Hentai game series is this based off of?

Also, I played in a campaign with a floating island kept aloft by a magical sigil being used pull the entire plane into hell, with an unknown time limit.
My character trashed that sigil so fast, over half the party still hadn't decided on what to do with it before they were casting feather fall or Plane shift.
(The lives of those in the city, weighed against the lives of everything on the plane? The Needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.)

Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable solution to the destruction of the world. But take out the world-ending and replace if with a a much, much lesser evil. No threat of destruction of all sentients. No plans for world domination or subjugation, just a guy who likes to have a little fun now and again, in a very bad way. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but how do the need of the few stack up against a different few? Would waiting and tryIng to find an alternate solution be best, maybe getting epic level and finding their own way of keeping the island aloft before destroying the macguffin be better, as the townsfolk would live? On a gamble that maybe there will be fewer atrocities committed by the big bad? Would destroying the item cause more deaths than would occur if they tried for an alternate solution? Big, great evils that threaten everyone make things easy. Smaller (but still significant) evils make things much more interesting. Threats are better when directed at anyone, rather than everyone.

[Morithias]

Big, great evils that threaten everyone make things easy. Smaller (but still significant) evils make things much more interesting. Threats are better when directed at anyone, rather than everyone.

And that is the threat of Demon King Miki in a nutshell. She is both big and small, she threatens everyone, yet threatens no one, and her targets the gods. No one else. She cares not for torture, murder, or the overall harm of society, the Demon King's goal is to kill of the gods and rule reality, nothing more. The ultimate question is how far do you let the threat go before it's considered "big enough" to act on. Step 2? Step 1? Step 5? Where do you finally draw your sword and murder her...the fact she gets more powerful the more corrupt she is doesn't help...

Spoiler

Show

The ultimate "twist" to this plot is going to be what happens if Miki goes fully evil and they join/don't manage to stop her. She'll kill off all the gods and then...retreat..nothing more. Will the world fall in chaos? No...because the gods weren't holding back any sort of chaos or holding law, hell there were just as many good gods as evil ones. The world is actually fairly stable without the deities....at least until the far realm comes into the picture... DUN DUN DUN!!