|7 people marked this as a favorite.|
In all seriousness there is a place for this kind of thing, but boy howdy is it incredibly rare and it shouldn't be a GM "Gotcha" to the players but a tool for a particularly evil brand of villain.
A demon that possesses an innocent so the players have to figure out a way to get the demon out without hurting the host.
An arch-villain that mind-control's the player's friends and loved ones.
Or who puts those loved ones in full armor with convenient face-covering helmets so that when the players sneak up and kill them with an incredibly well organized ambush the helmet falls off and the PCs realize with horror what they've done and have to spend precious resources bringing their loved ones back to life.
That's some eeeevil but it's done as a personal attack on the players' characters, and their morality. It's something in the toolbox that you save for special occasions like when you're finally pulling out Tar-Baphon from the toybox, or taking down the Thrice Damned house of Thrune. It should be an emotional gut-punch, to drive a point about the irredeemable evil they're trying to overcome.
The original example is just kind of terrible, what was the point of the moral dilemma there? Just to confuse the players and make them madder at some nobody villains that really wouldn't have a major impact on the campaign? Lame. What was the emotional punch there? Confusion, is pretty much the worst emotion to evoke at a table.
If I pulled something like that, my players would be absolutely justified in throwing dice at me for just being a jerk. It also encourages players to just play neutralish characters, because then they're immune to stupid morality challenges that don't have any real impact other than for the GM (who holds all the resources, cards and secrets) to lord how clever they are over the players.