|
I've been watching a lot of Star Trek TNG lately, and, I've become enamored with the idea of introducing an ethical or moral dilemma to a part of my campaign.
I have tried this before and had my players cry foul because, to them, i was being unfair, as they couldn't just plow straight through the problem at hand but had to work out a solution that was ethically acceptable.
What's your take on this? Good? Bad? Suggestions and experiences would be very welcome indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always make sure your players are on board with what your ethics and morals mean in relation to their own beliefs.
Let's say introduce a problem like, I dunno, you have to save the king of a nation or a bunch of orphans, and it is literally impossible to do both.
The orphans dying is a tragedy, yes, but the king we'll say is signing a peace treaty with a nation they've been at war with for centuries, and his successor doesn't believe in that goal. In the long run, you're saving possibly thousands more people by saving the king than those orphans.
The way this is approached is different based on each person's morality, it's perfectly possible for some people to see that even a Lawful Good person could see the greater good in saving the king, but others to think he should save the orphans since one man dying with the POSSIBILITY of others dying is not as pressing of an issue as 30 children dying.
You need to make perfectly clear what YOUR stance on the matter is so that they know how to work it. Because if they hit the problem and deal with it in a way they think is right, and you disagree...
Well let's just say there's a lot of Paladin threads, Crappy GM threads, and Crappy Player threads (from your perspective) for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience these sorts of moral quandaries end up mostly being no-win situations for the player who has to guess not what the "right" choice might actually be, but must guess what his GM considers the "right" choice to be.
Most of these situations have either ended badly or ended up being hand-waved because the player ended up doing something other than any of the choices the GM considered.
I personally find them to mostly be GM indulgences that add little to the game.
it depends upon the DM/group, the motivation, the scenario, and the delivery and implementation....
long story short: depends... you may try something like Rynjin said, and not have it impact your decision... but maybe grow the game based on what they decide and have no preset right/wrong.
If your players are up for it, and you strike the right balance, it can work. One problem with moral dilemmas is that they can feel like no-win situations... And those just aren't fun.
It's very easy to be too heavy-handed with that kind of situation. Also, all bets are off if there is a paladin in the party. It's so common as to be cliche that a GM who doesn't like the idea of paladins to deliberately put the paladin in a no-win moral quandry just to make her fall.
If you can make the encounter compelling, logical, appropriate, and sufficiently tragic, then you might be able to pull it off. This is a varsity-level GM trick to pull off successfully, and requires high level of trust between GM and players.
So, as a GM with 30+ years of play under my belt, I advise extreme caution. Moral dilemmas that didn't go so well have prematurely ended more than one campaign I've been involved with.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some quick thoughts:
1. Don't make the moral dilemma too heavy at first, just to test the waters. It doesn't have to be "Should we rescue the orphans or let the king die?" - it might be something small at first, like "Yeah, this guy is a thief, but he only wanted to help his son. Should we really hand him over to the authorities or let it be?"
2. Let your players explain. "That was a stupid decision." is far worse than "I don't really get why you would decide like this - please explain why this is the right thing to do for your character!"
3. Don't introduce a moral dilemma just to screw your players. That's not cool. Do it because they might enjoy those things and look for them as means of character development.
4. You might want to throw in some "What-if"-scenarios first. For example, before starting into the "real" game you could ask them some questions (as a group or individually) how they would act in certain situations, like for example the orphans/king-scenario.
5. Don't be afraid to say "Yes" to unconventional plans that might losen up the dilemma. Don't be angry that your cool Kobayashi Maru did not work; be happy that they solved it in a way you did not anticipate. Didn't watch that much Star Trek, but if it's in any way like the other series I watch the main cast should usually find a third option to bypass the dilemma, right?
I have a friend, who always includes moral and ethical choices when he is the DM. In one of his games, my character ended up an evil god, because of the choices he made. I didn't always agree with my friend, but it made some very interesting games.
If you're not sure you want to jump in with introduced moral dilemmas, you could introduce characters who view the character's actions in a different light than they do and react appropriately.
For example, if evil humanoids aren't actively harrasing villages, the townspeople might not be appreciative of the PCs heroically slaughtering their hunting party, worrying about needless violence and/or stirring up trouble.
A peaceful and/or nature-loving NPC might be put off if the PCs kill a group of animals who aren't attacking innocents and whose default behavior is to flee when threatened, because they're stuck in the 'mobile XP' mindset.
It shouldn't be a "Surprise! You fail!" moment, but a chance for a diplomatic encounter/introspection/character growth kind of deal.
|
It's not a big no-no. Many people enjoy moral dilemmas in their game (as long as they're not an exercise in guessing how the GM wants them to solve the problem, or a fall-trap for a paladin). It can be a really interesting way to develop character. For example, one character feels that it's acceptable to make a promise you don't intend to keep in order to obtain an important ally against a particular evil, while another character believes it's wrong to enter an alliance under false premises.
However, it sounds like your particular group does not like the idea. This means you have to tread carefully and be ready to abandon the idea, since the first rule is to have fun. I like Ximen Bao's suggestion of starting by introducing NPCs with alternate viewpoints. It creates some sense of introspection without putting a roadblock in the PCs way in the form of a moral puzzle.
You can also encourage them to go with their gut (or their character's gut if they're already engaged in RP without the dilemmas) and let them know that they won't be punished for acting in a way their characters feel is appropriate. You can make sure that the dilemmas you present have enough impact that the players feel their choice is relevant, but not so much that they feel pressured to choose the "best" solution. If they feel comfortable making these decisions quickly in the course of RP and don't feel pressure to "work out a solution" then it won't have as much of an effect on the pace.
Talking it over with your group in more detail is also probably a good idea.
|
Know your players.
I once started a new campaign..several players from prior groups, one fairly recent, one new. All of the PCs had a good alignment, but had little else in common. I tried to do a little team building exercise with an NPC ship captain inviting the passengers to dinner for a little light hearted conversation on the topic of good and evil. The intent was for the PCs to see that they had something in common to be able to then build on that commonality.
Net result: A couple of players loved it. The recent player complained that he gamed for a release from dealing with life and didn't want to have to think about ethical stuff. The brand new player refused to participate in the discussion, quit, and never explained why. It can be a touchy subject.
I am probably echoing others in this thread...
1) Don't impose your morality on your players. Meaning don't use the game as a vehicle to 'teach' your players a lesson.
2) Don't judge the player for their character's actions. I atleast play character with very different morality and philosphy that I do in real life.
3) Don't force it. If the PCs come up with other solutions let it happen. Don't come in with a limited number of solutions.
4) Take into account the setting. Real life morailty does not always play out in the worlds we game with.
5) Once you present the situration back off and let the players come to the solution themselves. Personaly the fun in this siturations comes from the RP between the characters.
From time to time, a situation with no good solution will crop up in a reasonably realistic world. Don't make it about dead children, even orc ones. Instead, allow more shades of gray. Let's say we're talking about an election of a political post. The heroes have some sway and can probably influence the election. Thing is, the only possible candidates are flawed to a man. One is an incompetent idealist, another is a forceful and skilled crusader for something they don't really like, and the third is a severely corrupt politico. After much thinking, they put their weight behind someone, and they get their man on the post. That was the dilemma, but it should not end there. Depending on what they chose, certain things will happen, some things will be easier, others will be harder for the heroes. The fruits of a dilemma should be just as complex as the situation itself: good and bad.
One I have done recently (which seems to be working very well) is offering shady deals.
Some one is secretly contacting each PC individually and offering them something they want/need (ex: temporary loan of a ring of spell turning) for a service that is at least ethically on the edge of wrong.
One PC won't even consider it. One is saving the possibility for a really desperate occaion. One is actively consider (while checking the fine print) moving forward on the deal to boost his power. No answer from the other.
I have gotten no grief from the players because they can just have nothing to do with it. And none of it is obviously necessary to the adventure. it might make somethings easier but it isn't necessary.
Got basic idea from one of the Kobold magazines. Don't remember which one. If you are interested, I can look for which one when I get home.
...The recent player complained that he gamed for a release from dealing with life and didn't want to have to think about ethical stuff...
I know several people like that. Sometimes I are one.
---------------------------------------
I would also say this is a case where less-is-more. If you throw this into the mix of your campaign, don't over do it. Very few people want to constantly agonize over their choices.
...The recent player complained that he gamed for a release from dealing with life and didn't want to have to think about ethical stuff...I know several people like that. Sometimes I are one.
---------------------------------------
I would also say this is a case where less-is-more. If you throw this into the mix of your campaign, don't over do it. Very few people want to constantly agonize over their choices.
Know your players! Aranna's rule #2
Narrativists LOVE constantly agonizing over their choices. But for anyone else it is best served in very small, very meaningful doses or not at all. So talk to your players and see if such an idea is pleasing. Then use it sparingly at first to see how they like it.
For the OP, if you have done this kind of thing before and it was not well-received by your players, how will it be different this time?
The first time I ever tried this a player said he thought it was outrageous to present him with a situation where there was no clear 'right' choice. A few years later, after he'd played a few games like PLANESCAPE: TORMENT, he was more open to these situations when they arose. I generally found them more effective when used sparingly.
As others have said, it depends on your players and the kind of games/films/novels they like. If their favourite writer is David Edding and they like playing Paragons in MASS EFFECT, you may want to avoid putting them in positions like this. If their favourite writer is Joe Abercrombie and their favourite game is FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS (for example), go knock yourself out :)
Maybe it's just because my own games have a lot of politics and heavy roleplaying, but the thought of a game without any moral or ethical quandaries just seems... alien to me.
My advice would simply to have situations present themselves naturally, and to have the world and its inhabitants react in an internally-consistent manner. Just like in modern politics, for any given issue there are those who will find fault no matter what you do, those who will be an undying proponent of an issue, and even those who may waver on where their allegiances lie.
To continue Runjin's scenario...
- The tavern in the neighborhood where the orphanage burn down might not want to serve the PCs drinks.
- The royal family may knight them.
- War profiteers may secretly launch a smear campaign against the PCs.
If you stick to using these dilemmas as what propels the plot rather than as reasons to trip up a cleric or paladin, you may find your new players more receptive than your old ones. Ooor they may come back and tell you that they'd rather kill orcs in 10-ft rooms guarding treasure chests. ;)