In Game Moral Conundrum need help resolving

[eru001]

So a situation cropped up in a game that I am running, fortunately it was at end of session so when it happened and could not be dealt with immediately I did the let's buy time option and scheduled the resolution of it for next session. I unfortunately have no Idea how to resolve it and so I was wondering if anyone else had some ideas.

The situation at present.

The party has no clearly defined leader and there are two individuals jockeying for the role. Both are Lawful Good Knights, and the two can't seem to agree on anything somehow. Normally I'd sit back and watch the truly excellent roleplay between the two players as they are both great in this regard and doing wonderful jobs of portraying opposite types of lawful good characters, however the events of the last session now force me to intervene and I have no idea how to do so.

The first character, we'll call him Knight A, strives to be the champion of the common people, he himself is the illegitimate son of a minor noble who won knighthood on the field of battle for gallantry in action. He leads from the front and refuses to send those beneath him into danger if it can at all be avoided choosing instead to put himself in harms way so that those he has sworn to defend don't have to. In combat his primary concern is to minimize casualties among his troops which he does through an emphasis on caution and asymmetric small unit tactics, he is pragmatic in that he always strives to create fights which are both short and unfair in favor of his side, and makes a point of always placing himself in the location where he expects the heaviest fighting to take place. Knight A strives to follow the knightly code, as he believes that it serves as a tool to guide knights to protect others, in his everyday life but will break it without hesitation should he feel that this "tool" is not serving it's intended purpose (to quote him, "The Laws exist to do good, and so I follow them. If they fail in this regard, then I shall do good without concern for them, and once they return to serving good I shall return to them.")

The second character, we'll call him knight B, strives to be the embodiment of the knightly code, doing everything he can to ensure that the code of chivalry is followed at all times. He is an up from the ranks soldier, who was knighted after serving as a common foot soldier or a number of years before being formally adopted by his heirless commanding officer (a famous knight) and granted noble rank. He rigidly adheres to both the chivalric code and traditional military tactics. When leading men in battle he normally positions himself in a central location so as to better see what is going on and issue orders accordingly, rather than skirmishing he prefers to engage the enemy directly with rigid set piece formations, and he has no problem ordering troops into combat without accompanying them. His primary concern in battle is to win the engagement. Knight B would never under any circumstances violate the knightly code as he believes that it is the code alone which prevents the kingdom from falling to savagery. (he responded to the above quote with "goodness exists because we have laws, and if we break them, we shall lose it and return these lands to the barbaric state before our kingdom came about.")

Both have dedicated their lives to helping others and protecting the kingdom but go about it in very different ways. On top of this both characters have big ego's and Alpha Male personalities. As a result they clash a lot. Both men are also incredibly pious.

Recently after their latest clash over strategy, tactics, and methodology in regards to a non-trivial mission that they are about to undertake, they remembered that the party cleric has the ability to summon a being of pure law and good from the realm of the diety that they both worship to ask for spiritual guidance in this matter. The rules of the particular skill involved state that the cleric may ask the being a single question to which the being must give a direct and truthful answer. they both agreed in character that clearly since they could not come to an agreement, they should have the cleric put the question to the being of pure law and good. At the end of the last session the cleric summons the being, and then asks the question,

"Which of these two knights should lead"

I as the DM have no answer as I A) am not so philosophically versed as to be able to decide which of these two viewpoints would be better in the eyes of a being of pure law and good, and B) don't believe that a DM should be telling the players which of them should be in charge of their party and hadn't given the matter much thought.

I have to give them an answer at the start of the next session and have no Idea what if any answer I should give. Help

[Coidzor]

"Neither."

The fact that they cannot cooperate, even in dire circumstances, and that one will always resent the other if some external party subordinates the one to the other... It's impossible to put one over the other and not bring about calamity.

That or it mentions a test or quest that exists solely to show that they need to learn to cooperate and that both have useful input.

[InvisibleBison]

Well, based on what you've said, it seems like both knights would make decent leaders. So you could just pick one at random. Alternatively, you could create a joint leadership position, though that might just lead to interminable squabbling.

[Slipperychicken]

Seconding "Neither of those two". If he has to elaborate, it's because they're so full of pride and hubris they can't be bothered to work together. They should instead be working under a unifying figure, like the king, a general, or some other lord.

[OldTrees1]

They both agreed in character that clearly since they could not come to an agreement, they should have the cleric put the question to the being of pure law and good. At the end of the last session the cleric summons the being, and then asks the question,

"Which of these two knights should lead"

I as the DM have no answer as I A) am not so philosophically versed as to be able to decide which of these two viewpoints would be better in the eyes of a being of pure law and good, and B) don't believe that a DM should be telling the players which of them should be in charge of their party and hadn't given the matter much thought.

I have to give them an answer at the start of the next session and have no Idea what if any answer I should give. Help

Interesting. Well the stereotypical answer to "A or B?" is the overlooked option "C".
LG Angel: "Both Knight A and Knight B can act as strong guides towards right action, but it is the role of a leader to consider both sides. Why only prosper under one guide when you can have a leader that can benefit from both? Cleric C, you have been blessed with two great advisers, may your wisdom grow all the more from their advice."

[Coidzor]

Also, totes less moral conundrum, more IC and possibly OOC player conflict.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Neither. He who cannot dissimulate cannot reign.

[Keltest]

I agree with the ones who say "neither" or "both". If one or the other takes command, whoever didn't is going to resent that. Theyre both intelligent and competent, and if they can just focus on making a solid strategy instead of arguing philosophy with each other, it would almost certainly be a very good one. If you really want to impress this on them, have the being of law and good not flat out berate them for their lack of cooperation.

[Lorsa]

I also believe the Cleric should lead. Clearly that is the best option.

Also, the reply "you both fail in the eyes of law and good" should hopefully make them a bit more humble.

[JohanOfKitten]

I don't think it's to the DM to choose this. Yes, it's a NPC who gives the answer in the game, but it's a choice that will influence as much how the game is played as how characters deal with their quest. If I were you, I would talk to the players about it to find which way could be best for the game, to be amusing for everyone.
It would avoid any resent from one or the other player toward how things goes and how his character can be diminished after that.


If the players can't agree about that or if they don't mind what could happen because they're open to everything, you decide.
In that case, I would say that, in my opinion (and that can be highly debatable so I don't want to push it as truth), is that Knight A is a bit on the edge between Neutral Good and Lawful Good, so knight B would fit better in place of a leader for a being of pure Law and Good; but the idea of puting cleric C in charge said in a lot of answers above me could really be the best way to handle it. He would have to listen both knights and have the wisdom to choose the best way every time, and the knights will still have their roleplay scenes in which they defend their tactics, just with the cleric in the middle this time.

[goto124]

Is the GM willing to play out (percieved) 'bad' consequences for the players' choices?

[eru001]

Is the GM willing to play out (percieved) 'bad' consequences for the players' choices?

I'm the DM, and Yes I am

[tomandtish]

"I'm a being of pure law and good. I work endlessly to make sure order, light and peace dominate the multiverse. I monitor the blood war to make sure it doesn't spill into the Prime Material. I provide assistance and advice to Saints, Kings, and Demigods. And this is the crap you are wasting my time with?!? Fine".

At that point every party member is required to speak honestly about the leadership capabilities of EVERY other member (but not themselves). They then must vote for a leader, and can NOT vote for themselves. Feel free to have a runoff if needed.

"This is how beings of pure law and good do it. Because if your actions to date haven't convinced others to support you, you shouldn't be putting yourself forward for the job in the first place".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Interesting. Well the stereotypical answer to "A or B?" is the overlooked option "C".
LG Angel: "Both Knight A and Knight B can act as strong guides towards right action, but it is the role of a leader to consider both sides. Why only prosper under one guide when you can have a leader that can benefit from both? Cleric C, you have been blessed with two great advisers, may your wisdom grow all the more from their advice."

^This.

Also remember that even beings that are pure law and good are not without disagreement on matters of practicallity. The conjured outsider could just as easily side with one as the other and another of his own kind side with the opposite. There are definiite merits to both arguments and only hive-minded creatures of pure law, untinged by good or evil, find themselves in perfect agreement about most things with any frequency.

Alternatively, it's a creature of pure law and understands that chain of command is a thing.

Have it determine their -exact- rank in the social and military hierarchy, relevant to distance from the supreme commander by rank (birth only comes into play if one of them is actually in the line of succession). The creature sides with whomever has the higher rank, as is in accordance with being of law. Have it tell them in a huff that it cannot answer the question if the details to this cannot be made immediately and abundantly clear. Maybe have it make some comment about backwards berks and their haphazard, nonsense hierarchies. If they have more or less equal rank then it demands they learn to cooperate because their internecene conflict is an embarrasment to the supreme order.

On a personal note; the above is what I think a DM should do. From a completely honest standpoint, Knight B has chosen the more effective leadership method in the overall. Bravery and valuing the lives of your men over your own are excellent qualities for a squad leader but a leader of larger military forces must accept that hard decisions must sometimes be made and it is sometimes necessary to send men to their deaths for the greater good of the cause for which they all fight. If you can't order your men to go die when it's necessary, you -will- lose to the guy that can. You may even lose to the guy who doesn't care. It's important to make sure men's lives are spent well rather than wasted but if you cling too tightly then they'll be taken from you piece-meal and you will lose in the end.

[Lycanthrope13]

"Law" is highly subjective. What one group deems lawful, another criminalizes. Law exists only to promote an agenda. When Law strives to protect, it is Good. When Law seeks to oppress, it is Evil. Law for its own sake is pointless. Therefore, I would choose A, who places Good above Law.


Then again, I lean toward Chaotic Neutral, so what do I know...

[Kelb_Panthera]

"Law" is highly subjective. What one group deems lawful, another criminalizes. Law exists only to promote an agenda. When Law strives to protect, it is Good. When Law seeks to oppress, it is Evil. Law for its own sake is pointless. Therefore, I would choose A, who places Good above Law.


Then again, I lean toward Chaotic Neutral, so what do I know...

This is why I really, really wish that whomever came up with alignment had used 'order' instead of 'law' there. Law (big L) is not subjective any more than good or evil in a D&D settting. It's the ideas of order and structure and collectivism and tradition writ large accross reality as one of its fundamental forces and the antithesis of Chaos (big C); disorder and amorphism and individualism and inovation. A lawful character will tend toward obeying the law (little C) but is not utterly beholden to it as an absolute, irresistable force within their own behavior. The more you read about lawful characters and creatures and their expected behaviors the more clear this becomes.

When you talk about the game there's an immense difference between law and Law and the two are all too commonly conflated because they're the same word describing different things. Please don't do that.

[veti]

Seconding "neither". If you want to elaborate: "If either of them were fit to lead, you wouldn't need to ask the question".

A leader is, by definition, someone who can persuade their underlings to work together and follow a common plan. A leader has to keep their eye on the "big picture". If that means occasionally - or even often - putting aside their own preferences and letting a subordinate have their way on some specific point of tactics or protocol, then the leader should be willing to pay that price to keep their team together.

Neither of your two alpha-types can do that, ergo they can't lead.

[ComaVision]

As someone else said, I think Knight B is a better embodiment of Lawful Good. Knight A seems closer to Neutral Good.

I think "neither," "both," or "cleric" sound like a cop-out.

[Coidzor]

As someone else said, I think Knight B is a better embodiment of Lawful Good. Knight A seems closer to Neutral Good.

I think "neither," "both," or "cleric" sound like a cop-out.

You think bad player behavior should be rewarded?

[Tentreto]

A different idea that comes to mind is to focus on what the character would do if they were not chosen.
Possibly try to give them each the idea the other was chosen, and gauge how well they take it. If they take it in good stead... they are acting both according to code and generally being nice. Otherwise, if they cannot take being lead well, how well can they lead anyway?
If you will, it is a hidden test of character.

[Michael7123]

You mention that both men are incredibly pious.

Well, I have a question for you: Do both knights worship the same deity? Furthermore, does the cleric worship the same deity?

If the answer to all of that is "yes", it would be really helpful if you could give us information on the deity they worship, as the being of pure law and good that was summoned would likely be a servant of that deity, who would share his/her dogma.

All that said- I am inclined agree with the people here saying the being of pure law and good making the cleric the party leader (assuming the cleric is also lawful good), especiallyif the cleric's character is humble. In spite of how it's often played differently, good people, especially lawful good people, aren't supposed to have massive egos. They can, but that's a deficiency in their overall lawful goodness. Nothing that would warrant an alignment change, certainly, but definitely something that can lead to one down the line.

Pride goes before the fall, and whatnot.

I for one, think that has the potential for some great roleplaying opportunities.

[Keltest]

Id be hesitant to put the cleric forward as a party leader because its a distinct possibility he, in character or out of character, has no desire to lead the party. Bring it up, but don't just say that the cleric should do it without even checking if he wants to.

[Michael7123]

Id be hesitant to put the cleric forward as a party leader because its a distinct possibility he, in character or out of character, has no desire to lead the party. Bring it up, but don't just say that the cleric should do it without even checking if he wants to.

This is an important thing to check. However, if the cleric's player is okay with it, it could make for some great role playing to have the cleric (in character) get a leadership position he doesn't want but will endure anyways.

After all, fulfilling obligations towards others - especially when you don't want to- is one of the most important aspects of being either lawful or good, and is doubly present in the case of lawful good.

You have a potential to teach your players a lesson about lawful good, DM. This has the potential to be a great role playing opportunity, a part of me wishes I would be in your shoes for this.

[eru001]

Unfortunately I checked both with the cleric and the other party members, as it stands only the two knight players have any desire for the job.

As far as what diety, they do all follow the same religion, though I'm not using the standard D&D dieties, the diety they all follow can best be described as King Arthur ascended to godhood.

basically the problem is that they have turned this into a pissing match of who is the most Lawful Good, and one of them is clearly LAWFULL good while the other is clearly lawful GOOD. I really don't like that they've thrown the decision at my feet as I thought they were doing great roleplay of the dispute but I have to admit, their solution of "appeal the decision to an authority both of us recognize" makes sense in character.

[dps]

As someone else said, I think Knight B is a better embodiment of Lawful Good. Knight A seems closer to Neutral Good.

I think "neither," "both," or "cleric" sound like a cop-out.

I agree in theory. In practice, though, this amounts to the DM telling them which one should be the party leader, which I find problematic. However, they asked for it. So with some reservations, I'd say have the answer be Knight B.

[Kid Jake]

You could go the King Solomon route and have the entity force them into a divinely sponsored duel to the death to determine the true leader; with whichever man reaches for his sword first being disqualified for putting his own ambition above the greater good.

[Strigon]

Perhaps a competition?
For a certain amount of time - say a week, or 3 days if you feel like keeping this short - they each have one turn as leader. The other must follow their orders explicitly and without malice or malintent, for the agreed amount of time. Then the other has their turn. Whichever one succeeds in being a more Good (that's capital G; not simply effective) leader in that time, gains the leadership position.
The Solomon challenge works, too.

[Vinyadan]

I would botch the spell. Have the cleric cast in a desecrated area, on a plain underneath which lies an ancient altar where uncountable innocents were unjustly sacrificed. Instead of the BOPLG, you get an impostor from the ancient times who offers himself to lead the group, "to bring harmony", but actually with his own agenda. See how long it takes for the characters to understand what's going on. Let the whole deal play itself out. With some luck, it shouldn't distract too much from the main quest, or may continue alongside with it. In the meantime, see if you can reach a solution with the players and avoid imposing them a choice they should make themselves.

[Rillian]

I vote Knight B.

Here is my reasoning:
Knight A values being good far more than being lawful. He's more akin to neutral good in my opinion, his self advertised claim to being lawful is nothing but self deception. I find his dedication to duty lacking, as he is only lawful when it suits him. His lack of discipline to a strict code will eventually get innocent people killed who were depending on him. He is inept at leadership as he can not delegate tasks, and feels he would rather attempt to do the most dangerous assignments himself. There is no "I" in team, and he fails miserably at this. This also reflects that he has no self confidence or respect as he feels the need to sacrifice his own well being at every battle, leaders fight smarter, not harder. Martyrdom is for the worthless commoners, he needs to realize his importance in the world and that his life isn't a commodity to be thrown away. Also, Knight A is a coward in that he will only engage when the odds are greatly in his favor. Leaders are not borne out of playing it on easy.

Two character archetypes could be interesting for both of them:
Model an NPC after Captain America, and another NPC after Jamie Lannister, and see how the two Knights interact with those NPCs. That will reveal a lot about them.

A moral test of their characters would be to see how they resolve a false rape accusation. Have a noblewoman sleep with the town scoundrel based on his false promises to live a life of wealth and adventure together, only to regret her decision and try to have him locked away or executed for rape. He's innocent of the crime, but he's a lying con artist. However, if he is found innocent, it could mean she is excommunicated from the church for adultery and two noble families will go to war.

[Gildedragon]

You could go the King Solomon route and have the entity force them into a divinely sponsored duel to the death to determine the true leader; with whichever man reaches for his sword first being disqualified for putting his own ambition above the greater good.

This is genius.

Alternatively: "What do your laws say?" have they established a compact to determine leadership? if not there is no 'law' or 'good' to the selection

or the angel could tell them something like: Respect, Tolerance, and Colaboration are the basis of law and good: they wish to lead, they must also be willing to follow, to hear what the other says.

or encourage alternating or situational leadership: one mission one, the other the other. or whoever has the most skillpoints or knowledge for a particular thing