I've always enjoyed subjecting my players to situations that required moral calls to be made. I'd like to see more of this type of thing appear in DUNGEON adventures.
Things like:
1. Whether to kill noncombatant enemy creatures
2. Making deals with vile evil foes for some gain (to the greater good?)
3. Using poison/torture
4. Forcing good parties into conflict with LG religious fanatic Paladins (sort of like the Priest King's troops from the DL books)
5. Enticing a character to harm a fellow player out of greed
6. Having the party hired by a LG group to slay a chaotic dragon only to find it is a chaotic good dragon.
7. Turning a rescue type mission into a "He can't be allowed to be questioned by the enemy alive" assassination of a good hero that the enemy unknowingly has captured
I'd like to hear what other moral issues DMs have sprung on their players and which adventures from DUNGEON people have found raised interesting moral issues.
ASEO out
I think I've sprung situations 1, 2 and 4 on my players at various points of a rather long campaign. It would be interesting to see some moral "gray" areas in Dungeon adventures. Some of those situations may be a bit much for Dungeon, but some could make the occaisional adventure just a little more intriguing.
once my DM Kidnapped my female averial elf with a group of
fey'ri, who then procede to summon a pit fiend to do some uhhh....stuff to her and, well, long story short, debating wether or not to keep your demon baby is really hard.
In the end she was FORCED to not keep it. The baby radiated evil from inside her and good clerics dont like that much evil from a baby, so out it came while she was tied down in a calm emotions bubble. All this led to a total sanity break down and the death of my averial and the partys good cleric. I think the moral is dont mess with mommy.
I always liked moral quandries in adventures too. I was always amazed at how many lawful good characters would set in with relish to kill the largely defenseless non-com females and children that used to frequent D&D adventures. Sure, they were non-com female and children goblins and orcs and kobolds and lizardmen... but they were still defenseless creatures.
I suspect that 1,2 & 4 are the most common of your suggestions that get get used... though I've seen good characters come awfully close to torture in order to get information... and even kill the creatures once they thought they'd gotten all the info they could.
|
I love setting up moral quandries, but it's not easy.
The best one I ever had, the party (including a paladin) charge in to the evil wizard's den for the climactic battle - and he surrenders immediately. He places himself in the paladin's care. He states that he truly feels that he should repent his ways (and everyone knows he's not being honest). Whattaya do in that case? That was half an hour of agony for my players ...
My players are, for the most part, much better at rolling dice than role playing. That being said, certain game situations have led to great moral arguments between the players.
After a climactic confrontation to win the Hall of the Fire Giant Chief (Against the Giants), the wounded and depleted party entrusted the first guard duty to the only unwounded member, a recently rescued female thief (you may remember the hot drawing of her tied to the wall) that joined them. Upon waking 4 hours later, the group's fighter found the thief, and the party's portable hole (with over 250,000 gp in loot), to be missing. The remaining members decided to use a Wish to recall her into their midst, weapons drawn and all that (it wasn't enough to just wish the loot back). She appeared instantly, calmly, and without the treasure. Having seen the party in action and knowing they had a few Wish spells at their disposal, the thief expected to be caught, and hid the portable hole shortly after stealing it. She offered to return it in exchange for 20,000 gp and the party leader's vow not to harm her. Some arguing ensued, but the group's leader finally agreed. She led them to the loot, and the fighter (who had promised the group leader not to harm her) attacked. The rest of the group was literally stunned, and the leader, after some quick soul-searching, attacked the fighter. The rest of the group was forced to take sides, and quickly.
The party ALWAYS has a problem when dealing with wimpy commoners that they find locked in some dungeon's dungeon. No one wants to escort the hapless prisoner back home, or free them and let them wander and potentially raise an alarm, or have such fodder travel the dungeon with them. Someone always opposes leaving a prisoner shackled "for the time being". Peasant prisoners always bring the game to a screeching halt.
In our last session, the group found a room with bubbling black slime coating the floor. Not wanting to risk himself or anything valuable, the sorceror of the group opened his Bag of Tricks, grabbed a fur ball, and tossed it in. The ball transformed into a wolverine that immediately began screeching as the slime ate its flesh. Even though the animal was magically summoned, the ranger of the group marched up and punched the sorceror.
They seem to create their own moral dilemmas. Maybe they like to role play after all.
Another one I forgot to mention.
In my current game there is a NE Necromancer in the party. He frequently uses the spells 'Skeleton" and 'Zombie' from AEGs "Undead" (I think). The back ground is that he is a military necromancer that serves in the ranks and animates the fallen. "Because it is better to have an undead ally at your side than to have an ungarded flank." The War is now over and the Necromancer finds himself exploring runins with various groups of adventures. He'll animate any corpse he can find, and is often fairly calluois with the animated dead, letting them spring traps, or venture first into rooms. This usually results in the destruction of the animated corpse. Now, the party is thinking..."Glad that was a skeleton and not me". But they know that should any of them die the Necromancer will be standing by. I can't remember if it is only a house rule, or actually in the books, but once you've become undead, you can't ever be returned to life.
When battles start to do south, the necromancer begins smiling, and the players really start to panic.
Every now and then the party Cleric will turn or destroy the Necromancer's current undead minion. This has led to some fun in game conflict.
So far the Necromancer hasn't had to adventure with any Lawful Good characters...but a time will come.
The argument here is what is the difference between animating a lifeless corpse, and animating a table?
What is the difference between controlling undead, and controlling an Elemental? (as of yet the Necromancer has not bent any free-willed undead to his will...but he'll be able to soon)
There was a set under 2ed called Jankador: Island of XXXX. It had interesting takes on both alignment and necromancy. Why can't two Lawful Good soldiers find themselves on opposite sides of a battlefield? Does killing a Lawful foe make you any less good?
ASEO out
I have personally DMed players through scenarios 1-5. In fact, some players don't need enticement to harm other characters, and they are a royal pain.
As I mature, I realize just how many moral issue there are in even a simple dungeon adventure. Whose stuff did you just loot off the evil bandit's corpse? He obviously stole it from someone, right? Does the fact that he was evil justify whacking him and taking it for your own? Shouldn't you make even the slightest attempt to find out who owned the bag of magic beans or the fantastic tapestry before you sell it at the pawn shop? Why is using a nice, quick acting poison bad, but casting heat metal on someone and watching them slowly combust OK? That prison guard that you caught sleeping and cut his throat? He was just doing his job - wasn't he?
You can play the game in black and white, or you can slide into gray areas, which can really make a person uncomfortable. One of my PCs slept with a Night Hag while she was disguised as a beautiful woman (eew!). I won't even muddy the waters by bringing up the fact that the PC knew there was something amiss, but carried on anyway. What can you say about that? If the PC was a paladin, would he need to atone? The rules say that paladins need to atone even if they didn't realize that their acts were evil, or if they were magically compelled. (If you don't think that was an evil act, consider what will happen to any offspring of that particular union.) Now I'm really getting uncomfortable.
So in answer to ASEOs questions, I've been planning to begin a campaign soon which is essentially a civil war between two noble factions, both of which are fighting to raise their candidate up as King. Neither side is evil. The PCs will be forced to take sides, and their actions will be noted by the other side. How they act will determine their reputations in the campaign world.
I'm fashioning the entire campaign based loosely on our own civil war, which was fought by noble men on both sides (many of which I think would be considered Lawful Good). Many of the key officers on both sides of that conflict knew each other (and were friends / mentors / associates) before they were forced to decide whether they wanted to join their states in secession or stick with the union. (e.g.-Robert E. Lee)
I think ASEO's brought up a fascinating topic, and I try to challenge my PCs with difficult decisions of this nature whenever I can. It isn't quite as simple as a detect evil spell, but I know it when I see it (usually).
As a DM, I like the moral quandries I can throw at the players.
As a player, I hate it when the DM gives us a "no right answer" question. Some gray areas are fine (and to be expected), but when you're given a "kill the innocent or watch the kingdom fall" issue, the game ceases to be entertaining. I feel manipulated and in a contrived situation.
Add to this the "Alignment Question". Just about everyone has their own interpretation of alignment, and the DM may explain his endlessly. But if you're not convinced that it's the correct response, then you're just playing someone else's character. A great example of this is the whole "intent vs action" thing. One of my DMs believes that if you can somehow rationalize your actions, that's fine. ("I'm killing these babies because they'll have a rough life.") OTOH, I'm very much into explaining your character, then deciding (with the DM's input) your alignment.
So my advice is: watch out what you throw at the party. Make sure you're not tossing them something that could cause more conflict than it's worth.
(Having said that, I have thrown rapist/murderers, religious orgies, and other morally questionable material at my parties. But my playing experience leads me away from the "no win" situations I've seen before.)
Telas
Here's a situation I found interesting:
While exloring a ruin, the party was ambushed by a small group of Gricks. The party's Druid used her Summon Nature's Ally ability to bring a trio of Wolves into the combat, not realizing that the Gricks had damage reduction. A fighter in the party with a magic battleaxe, frustrated that the Wolves were in his way, killed one so that there would be a slot for him to step into. The Druid immediately fired her crossbow at the fighter, who was stunned. "What? It was only a summoned wolf! It was just going back to its home plane anyway!"
As a result of this incident, the Druid swore that she would never heal that Fighter again: A promise that lasted until the party's next near death experience with a band of Gnolls...
I think it depends on the DM and players. Some people enjoy that sort of stuff. While I don't so I don't purposely put it into my games. I find throwing these kinds of things into an average D&D game causes way more angst than its worth. Alternatively if you are running a campaign set around this idea - for instance an exalted campaign. Or atelast a character wants to be that way. I have no problem with it.
If he plays his role right he will cause more than enuf trouble to an average party of characters without me throwing baby kobolds at them.
Ah...Antiqueas. He is a disturbing one.
Yeah, but he is real fun in play. I just forget to keep tormenting him with the ship captain's spirit, which he sees in any natural flame. (I mean to work in a fire phobia eventually) It is interesting how a character that can be a threat to the other characters is so universally enjoyed by all the players. Maybe it is just morbid curiousity over what he will do next.
I hope you are enjoying the write-up. I just wish I could get the player to do more write-ups from Antiqueas' point of view.
ASEO out
The only thing I wonder is why we all always can picture a LG zealot and how he might screw up this or that and might come into conflict with the party, but we never think of a Chaotic good zealot.
Chaotic is as extreme as Lawful is. Think about it. A great evil is unleashed on the land. A large, lawful good church has a means to help defeat it, but the chaotic good zealot thinks the party can handle it on their own, doesn't trust the church, thinks it has ulterior motives, etc. . . generally allowing the evil to grow unchecked as the CG zealot tries to find a way to act individually and with out looking outside for help . . .
Running almost exclusively Evil partys over the years has never led me to run those scenarios...but then, I've enjoyed running truly alternative games where my encounters consist just as much of Good-aligned NPC parties, City guards and local militias as they do the regular monsters...
Most of the colorful roleplay comes from just staying together!
Read the Adventure Path Evil Variant!
M
|
Well a situation occured while we were playing Shadowrun, a grey area game if there ever was one.
We had done our share of killing enemies but one time we were in Egypt and we were attacked by bandits who we defeated but not until one of the players had been seriously wounded. This player then proceeded to 'cap' all the bandits that lay bleeding yet still alive. The rest of us were mortified and an actual argument broke out over this.
The thing I found is that he was a younger player and IMHO unlike the older players of the group, didn't grow up with heroic role models like Superman, Spiderman and Luke Skywalker. Now days every youngster thinks Anakin Skywalker is soooo cooool but lets face it, he became evil. If that is what youngsters see as a role model these days then we're all doomed!
Reebo
My party was crossing some grasslands when they came across a Halfling caravan being attacked by Gnoll raiders. The (surviving) Gnolls escaped, but it seems that they had taken an important Cleric of Yondolla with them. The party was asked to save her as they were the only fighting folk left without any major damage after the battle.
At this time, my party consisted of a Neutral fighter, a Chaotic Neutral rogue, a Chaotic Neutral sorcerer and a Cleric of Pelor (who I just so happened to have to play since our numbers were down.) The fighter and the rogue were beginning to drift towards good, but the sorcerer was slowly going the other direction. He'd ask, "How much is riding your valley of the dragon worth?" It was getting harder and harder for the other characters not to beat him (the other players too.)
The fighter and the cleric acted as a diversion so that the sorcerer and the rogue could sneak into the camp. They rescued the halfling, and somehow, the sorcerer just lost his last once of good. As they ran from the camp, he was throwing fire spells at every single tent in the camp. This was not just some Gnoll warparty, this was a community filled with noncombatants! And he was setting them on fire! When we returned the halfling to her people, we held a party meeting and cast out the sorcerer (my cleric was about ready to kill him). The player had put the party (and the DM) into a moral dilemia; how do you deal with a member of your party that's gone rogue? (And not the class!)
The only thing I wonder is why we all always can picture a LG zealot and how he might screw up this or that and might come into conflict with the party, but we never think of a Chaotic good zealot.
Chaotic is as extreme as Lawful is. Think about it. A great evil is unleashed on the land. A large, lawful good church has a means to help defeat it, but the chaotic good zealot thinks the party can handle it on their own, doesn't trust the church, thinks it has ulterior motives, etc. . . generally allowing the evil to grow unchecked as the CG zealot tries to find a way to act individually and with out looking outside for help . . .
Agreed. I also think the Neutral Good alignment would tend to generate more fanatics (or religous fanatics would gravitate to NG) because these characters ONLY believe in the good. Damn the consequences, the law and individuality.
I played a truly NG character in a friends campaign using ideas from the exalted handbook. And man did that cause conflicts. In praticular between my character and the LG paladin. I didn't think it would but it did.
NG = fanatic IMO.
The player had put the party (and the DM) into a moral dilemia; how do you deal with a member of your party that's gone rogue? (And not the class!)
It depends on the DM/players but it sounds like you and the DM didn't want to deal with this kind of moral dilemma. Which sounds very much like the kind of game I run.
I have a standing rule that if your character goes "rogue" (that is they become evil) you hand me the character sheet and I hand you 4d6.
You have to make these kinds of things clear from the beginning of the campaign. I have learned from experience that it makes things easier down the road.
the sorcerer just lost his last once of good. As they ran from the camp, he was throwing fire spells at every single tent in the camp. This was not just some Gnoll warparty, this was a community filled with noncombatants! And he was setting them on fire!
Greg V wasn't playing the Sorcerer was he...maybe with a character named Huckabee perchance?
ASEO out
|
|
Great topic, ASEO.
I love it when the game forces my players to look at their characters and how they are relating to each other and the world at large. Happily, I have two great games going on in that respect in play by post games elsewhere.
I'm running Temple of Elemental Evil (2nd Ed) and the party includes a CN elven Smuggler, a LG 1/2 elf Falconer, a CG(N) gnome jester, his very disciplined Breechgnome aunt who doesn't approve of his idiocy, a NG Elementalist from Zief who doesn't agree with much that these easterners do, and a very timid NG M-U/Cleric of Boccob. The smuggler has just been recently exposed as a drug runner...he makes his living running illegal drugs into the very principled Veluna. The drug he's running, Malachite Dream, is a hallucenogenic somewhere on the spectrum between pot and peyote I terms of effect and concequence, so there are much worse drugs he could be running. The falconer is completely opposed to it, what makes it the more interesting is that the falconer and the smuggler had been relatively tight until it was exposed that he wasn't just your garden variety rogue. Add to that the interaction between the manic and chaotic jester, his tricks and jokes on the party, and his Aunt trying to reign him in; how to deal with prisoners who are just going to be hung back in town anyway, and the absolute assurity the mage has that any way the easterners do things is just wrong. I have to give major props to my players, they are doing a marvelous job of reacting as characters and not over-reacting as players. I think we are all having a great time with it.
My other game is a Deadlands campaign. For those unfamiliar, Deadlands is a sort of horror/light sci-fi/steampunk game set in the Old West. The players are a pretty tight group, only relatively minor differences in outlook, and the current villian is clear-cut evil, but it's all of the NPC's that help add the shades of grey. The Civil War rages on and the players (all Northern sympathizers or former Union Soldiers) are in the violently divided Kansas Territory. The town they are based out of is run by a Southerner who ultimately backs the Confederate States of America because he belives in states rights, but he's also strongly opposed to slavery. Various towns folk embrase the full spectrum of world-views...ideas on slavery, individual rights, sex, justice, bigotry, etc. I'm glad the HBO show Deadwood started after I started this campaign or I might have been accused of lifting bits right out of it.
I love the bad guy though, "Juarez" Tommy Nix, the leader of a band of outlaws called the Noose Dancers. He survived a haning down in Mexcio, but still wears the burns. To gain entry into the Dancers, a petitioner has to tie his own noose and be hung and bear the marks of the experience. You find out if you pass if they cut you down. He's just a delightfully degenerate character to play. Sometimes having no questions of moral ambiguity can be a helluva lot of fun, too.
I have sprung virtually all of the things you listed on my player over the years. However, these have had both good and bad results for the campaign. Number 1 and 2 are never a problem for my as a DM. I am also playing in a Freeport campaign which has the party doing making deals with all sides in the conflicts, using deceit to get ahead, and using poison questionable techniques to get things done. The characters in the party are not banded together due to trust or moral obligation, they are banded together since they all want to keep the most dangerous individuals for their characters where they can watch each other.
I always liked moral quandries in adventures too. I was always amazed at how many lawful good characters would set in with relish to kill the largely defenseless non-com females and children that used to frequent D&D adventures. Sure, they were non-com female and children goblins and orcs and kobolds and lizardmen... but they were still defenseless creatures.
I would think that Lawful Good would be the easiest of the good alignments to explain this away with.
For a Lawful Good Character protecting society - specificially his or her own society is extremely important. Allowing the Goblins to live means allowing them to grow up and presumably to terrorize the nearby towns in the future.
Its the Neutral Good or Chaotic Good Characters have more of a moral dilemma I would think sense they don't place such a premium on the need to maintain Law and Order and hence have no moral imperitive to eliminate something thats a threat to Law and Order at some point in the future.
Well a situation occured while we were playing Shadowrun, a grey area game if there ever was one.
We had done our share of killing enemies but one time we were in Egypt and we were attacked by bandits who we defeated but not until one of the players had been seriously wounded. This player then proceeded to 'cap' all the bandits that lay bleeding yet still alive. The rest of us were mortified and an actual argument broke out over this.
The thing I found is that he was a younger player and IMHO unlike the older players of the group, didn't grow up with heroic role models like Superman, Spiderman and Luke Skywalker. Now days every youngster thinks Anakin Skywalker is soooo cooool but lets face it, he became evil. If that is what youngsters see as a role model these days then we're all doomed!
Reebo
I hit nearly the opposite situation. Same Game (Shadow Run) which is just crawling with this sort of thing. Anyway we grab some middle managment wage slave from the evil corp we are trying to infiltrate and we are interigating the guy in the back of a van. Well of course we threaten to kill him if he does not co-operate.
Anyway the Wage Slave procedes to press his emergancy call for help switch (there is some kind of insurance company that will come racing to get you in Shadowrun but the name of the company eludes me right know).
Well the younger players hop out of the Van we have this guy in and start sprinting for safety before his insuracne brokers show up and hose us all down. I however empty my clip into him probably killing him before sprinting for safty. This gets me in hot water with the other (much younger players). My take is that my word is my bond...I told him we wouldn't hurt him if he co-operated but did he do that? no. Just the opposite... I always keep my word.
I really enjoyed the article in DUNGEON #122, "Atypical Enemies", by Chris Sims. It perfectly illustrates how the party can come into conflict with enemies who are not evil, and is some cases may be Lawful Good. Various similiary aligned religions may also come into conflict over differences in dogma. I've always liked the idea of pitting two Paladin orders against each other.
ASEO out
I've always liked the idea of pitting two Paladin orders against each other.
History beat you to it. It's called the Crusades...
I've always liked the idea of pitting two Paladin orders against each other.History beat you to it. It's called the Crusades...
True - but then the Crusades is not a 3.5 edition adventure.
I think two competing good knightly type orders engaged in a conflict in which both are in the right depending on how you look at it might make an excellent adventure. Throw the players into the middle and have them trying to navigate their way out the situation without leaving dead Paladins everywhere. That could be a real challange - love to see that in Dungeon.
I've always liked the idea of pitting two Paladin orders against each other.History beat you to it. It's called the Crusades...
True...true... I just finished a book about the Knights Templar during the crusades...I think that the crusades were more like two groups of Blackguards going at it. Richard the Lionheart slaughtered 2,000 women and children and elderly he had given safe passage to. Mongol's killed every living thing in towns that opposed them. Muslims allied with Christions against other Muslims, and the Templars and the Assassins were even allies at one time. Truely a dark time. I'd like to thing most of the world has moved beyond that.
That being said, I really enjoyed the 2ed Historical setting campaign books, and recall an interesting Crusades adventure in Dungeon a while back. Something about the True Cross.
I think I mentioned it in this thread before, but since I can't scroll back up while I'm writing I'll mention it again. The Jankador Campaign setting in 2ed was full of all sorts of good moral issues. Lawful good nercomancers, Lawful Good soldiers allied with chaotic evil soldiers fighiting against forces of the same. Neat setting.
ASEO out