Book of Vile Darkness: A Morality Play?

[LurkAway]

Hailing the Book of Vile Darkness which has guidelines for an evil campaign, I was wondering...

Say the PCs have destroyed an outpost of evil giants that were planning to overrun a nearby village. The heroes find a girl giant, plus many orcs and goblins in chains and slave collars working the ore mines. If the PCs ignore the girl giant, she will flee. If the PCs ignore the goblinoid slaves, they will probably starve to death in their chains. If the PCs kill the slaves, it will be a nasty bloodbath. If the PCs free the slaves, the orcs and goblins will be helpless and cringing and skulk away. Either way, the PCs then scoot off to their next quest in a land far away.

Possible future: If left alive, the orcs will bully and eventually eat the goblins, regroup and rearm, and raid/slaughter/rape the nearby villagers (that the PCs were originally intending to protect from the giants) for food, resources and human slaves. Meanwhile, the girl giant returns to the main giant lair, who may choose to send a giant raiding party to restore honor and blood veangance, killing and enslaving any humans or goblinoids still standing.

Possible clarification: One PC hails from that village and his entire extended family would be killed or enslaved by orcs or giants.

The above predictions may or may not unfold exactly as stated, but when the PCs had to make a choice, they don't know either way.

In your good campaign, is it fair to put the players in this kind of dilemma? Should moral grey areas be absent from adventure design? What if they pop up inadvertently in the course of play? Should modern sensibilities and modern ethics (Geneva convention, etc.) be applied to a world of chaos, danger, and innately evil creatures?

In your evil campaign, would Evil be Easy & Cool, or would it be a reverse exploration of good and evil? Should players internalize the consequences of evil PC actions, or is it just a non-immersive game where anything goes? Is an evil campaign a less or more appropriate sandbox vs a good campaign to explore moral issues?

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

WRT good campaigns: It's perfectly "fair" to face the players with moral dilemmas like this. From my perspective, the question is more whether it's a good/desirable idea for a given group. Some groups really enjoy moral dilemmas/tough choices. I'm very fond of them myself. Other groups hate them, often with particular hate for the "do we kill semi-innocent but evil prisoners"? Either of those are fine as aesthetic preferences.

I would say that whether moral dilemmas are present should broadly speaking be equivalent across adventure design and emergent play. If you're designing the scenario you described and you don't want moral dilemmas, you should replace the goblin and orc slaves with good human slaves--then it's a simple matter of freeing the slaves, yay! If you avoid moral dilemmas in design, you'll typically want to avoid them in emergent play as well, because the point is that they're not good for your group. Some groups might want to have moral dilemmas, but only rarely--that might be a group where not designing them in, but occasionally allowing them to emerge from the events in the game might be a good fit. But if the players really, really don't want to engage with moral dilemmas, then insisting on them can be really destructive (even if just because it's what makes sense based on prior events and was unplanned).

As a last point, I would say that if you do engage with moral dilemmas, you have to expect different sorts of play to emerge in response. The moral dilemma as you present it has some flavor of "heads I win, tails you lose"--do you do something horrible and distasteful, or do you allow terrible results to happen. If those are the only outcomes, that's a pretty rough choice, and one that will be unfun to many players. But if you're willing to allow the PCs to try to civilize the orcs (for example), then the PCs can still get to a "win" despite the dilemma, by in a sense defusing the dilemma. Of course, then the choice isn't a one-off "what do we do with the orc slaves," but rather becomes a driver of the campaign. That's not a bad thing in my eye, but it is something to think about.

 

[Soramain]

In your good campaign, is it fair to put the players in this kind of dilemma? Should moral grey areas be absent from adventure design? What if they pop up inadvertently in the course of play? Should modern sensibilities and modern ethics (Geneva convention, etc.) be applied to a world of chaos, danger, and innately evil creatures?

In your evil campaign, would Evil be Easy & Cool, or would it be a reverse exploration of good and evil? Should players internalize the consequences of evil PC actions, or is it just a non-immersive game where anything goes? Is an evil campaign a less or more appropriate sandbox vs a good campaign to explore moral issues?

Really interesting topic. I think it's fair to put players in a "good" campaign into this kind of moral dilemma. In my group, such moral dilemmas are a lot of what drives party conflict. I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion that the orcs and goblins will turn to evil, or that the giant girl will seek revenge. Those things may even be likely, but if it is 100% certain that such creatures will always turn and bite the hand that feeds them then you will not long have such moral debates.

Players may be advised to trust but verify in these types of situations. Good players who slaughter prisoners and children of monstrous races will probably not be good in my campaign for very long. Being good shouldn't always be easy.

I've never run an evil campaign (just not interested), but if I did it would definitely not be a non-immersive anything goes type of game. I think I'd seek to explore the mind of an evil person - not a person who is insane or evil just because, but a person who (like most of us) has a vast capacity to justify doing what he wants in moral terms. For example, a character who believes that using evil powers is okay if you use them for the "greater good."

 

[Mercutio01]

I've never GMed an evil campaign, but I did play in one that started at the neutral end of good and progressed to the neutral end of evil.

Something like below.

Good . . . . . X . . Neutral . . Y . . . . Evil

It was driven by player actions in the game world and explored characters shifting in moral grey areas until their end goals, justified or desirable as they may have been, were being sought after using increasingly more evil actions. That was, without a doubt, one of the most entertaining campaigns I've ever played.

I think moral dilemmas are excellent fodder for games with mature (in the intellectual sense) gamers who can explore them without falling into chaotic stupid. But I also think that in games with rigid alignment systems, there are some pitfalls if using the rules as written, especially with game mechanics that rely on those rigid alignments.

 

[Rechan]

The dilemma of killing baby orc/gnoll/etc has been around for a long time, and doesn't necessitate an Evil campaign for PCs to justify killing helpless dependents of the humanoids they slay.

The argument generally comes down to this: are the monsters evil from birth (i.e. if you put a baby orc in a privileged school and teach it ethics, show it love, it will still grab a fork and murder you because it's born that way) or are they evil based on their culture/upbringing/etc.

Many groups do not question that Orcs are Irredeemable evil, kill'm. This is the Old School standard - many older groups I've seen online subscribe to the "Orcs are irredeemable". For them, slaying the babies is justified. For those that subscribe to the 'cultural design', then slaying the non-combatants is wrong and therefore evil. This requires that everyone in the group be on the same page. If it's evil, then what to do about them is another dilemma, unless players just don't care.

But honestly, in my experience (and based on reports from people online) most groups will take a Quest involving good intentions, but their behavior is darkly neutral-to-evil. Most groups don't take prisoners, but when they do, the prisoners are usually tortured then murdered. Groups have no qualms with killing enemies in their beds, raiding tombs, and so on. It's been bemoaned time again that moral behavior is not rewarded by the system or by DMs, so players do not act morally. So the issue of 'Evil campaigns' is pretty much 'most campaigns are evil in deed, but named Good'.

 

[Klaus]

A good DM (even in an Evil campaign) shouldn't include such situations without providing the Right Answer to the dilemma, *in regards to the campaign world*. Otherwise he's just setting up the campaign to watch the world burn.

If the DM introduces a group of oppressed humanoids toiling under the giant masters, he should give the PCs the possibility of "redeeming" the humanoids, i.e. freeing them and not have them simply attack the countryside years later. If the PCs are willing to Do The Right Thing, the DM shouldn't be looking for ways to screw them up later.

 

[Rechan]

A good DM (even in an Evil campaign) shouldn't include such situations without providing the Right Answer to the dilemma, *in regards to the campaign world*. Otherwise he's just setting up the campaign to watch the world burn.

Aint that the truth. I'd give you Xp if I could.

 

[the Jester]

In your good campaign, is it fair to put the players in this kind of dilemma? Should moral grey areas be absent from adventure design? What if they pop up inadvertently in the course of play? Should modern sensibilities and modern ethics (Geneva convention, etc.) be applied to a world of chaos, danger, and innately evil creatures?

Yes it's fair. No grey areas shouldn't be absent. No, modern sensibilities shouldn't apply (in my campaign), but that depends on the setting.

In your evil campaign, would Evil be Easy & Cool, or would it be a reverse exploration of good and evil? Should players internalize the consequences of evil PC actions, or is it just a non-immersive game where anything goes? Is an evil campaign a less or more appropriate sandbox vs a good campaign to explore moral issues?

In my campaigns, evil is about the same as good on the "Easy & Cool" scale. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Should players internalize the consequences of evil PC actions, or is it just a non-immersive game where anything goes?"- I'm not out to teach any life lessons, I'm out to run a game where the players lead the action. If their evil actions have consequences, so be it. Their good actions will too. But that doesn't mean that the game is non-immersive- this isn't a binary at all.

I absolutely disagree with Klaus here:

A good DM (even in an Evil campaign) shouldn't include such situations without providing the Right Answer to the dilemma, *in regards to the campaign world*. Otherwise he's just setting up the campaign to watch the world burn.

A moral dilemma only burns the world down if the dilemma is, "Do we set the world on fire?"

If the pcs imc raid a goblin outpost and slay all the warriors, they decide what to do with the females and young. Repercussions and consequences emanate from everything the pcs do. Often there are negative aftereffects to a party's actions in a given town once they leave (that corrupt guard they slew? His family has to turn to prostitution or starve), but they may never know about them. Or care, if they know. Or it might be the hook for another adventure later.

All of this is very much dependent on play style. If your style and your group is such that they will be ruined by having tough choices have consequences, maybe it's better to leave these situations out. For myself, I don't play with groups like that. My players know that I'm vicious and mean and more than willing to put them in no-win situations with no solution in mind. I, as the dm, create the problems, I don't solve them for the pcs. That's their job.

 

[Klaus]

Yes it's fair. No grey areas shouldn't be absent. No, modern sensibilities shouldn't apply (in my campaign), but that depends on the setting.



In my campaigns, evil is about the same as good on the "Easy & Cool" scale. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Should players internalize the consequences of evil PC actions, or is it just a non-immersive game where anything goes?"- I'm not out to teach any life lessons, I'm out to run a game where the players lead the action. If their evil actions have consequences, so be it. Their good actions will too. But that doesn't mean that the game is non-immersive- this isn't a binary at all.

I absolutely disagree with Klaus here:



A moral dilemma only burns the world down if the dilemma is, "Do we set the world on fire?"

If the pcs imc raid a goblin outpost and slay all the warriors, they decide what to do with the females and young. Repercussions and consequences emanate from everything the pcs do. Often there are negative aftereffects to a party's actions in a given town once they leave (that corrupt guard they slew? His family has to turn to prostitution or starve), but they may never know about them. Or care, if they know. Or it might be the hook for another adventure later.

All of this is very much dependent on play style. If your style and your group is such that they will be ruined by having tough choices have consequences, maybe it's better to leave these situations out. For myself, I don't play with groups like that. My players know that I'm vicious and mean and more than willing to put them in no-win situations with no solution in mind. I, as the dm, create the problems, I don't solve them for the pcs. That's their job.

If everyone agrees to do the same thing, aces! But if there are disagreements among the players, because the DM never determined what is customary in the campaign world, then hours will be lost in pointless argument (I've lived through far too many of those).

Depending on the campaign world, the Right Answer could be "kill 'em all" (maybe orcs are just fleshbound demons, not truly natural creatures). That's okay. But everyone needs to be on the same page.

 

[the Jester]

...But everyone needs to be on the same page.

And as strongly as I disagreed with you above, I agree here!

That's the thing about playstyle- a group with four players expecting different things vis-a-vis intraparty conflict, frequency of death, grit level, etc is likely going to end up with two or three players very dissatisfied.