[Semi-serious] Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic

Paladin players,

Are you sick and tired of arguing with your DM over how a paladin is supposed to act? Do you live in fear that you are going to lose your abilities? Are your fellow party members annoyed because your code imposes restrictions on them without any reward? If so, Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic might be for you!

Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic is a simple, objective way of determining whether your paladin successfully overcomes the moral dilemmas placed before him, gives him an advantage when dealing with them, and rewards him and the party for doing so.

Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic is based on the d20 trap resolution system. Just as the DM doesn't ask the rogue player which fiddly bit he presses to disarm a poison needle trap, he won’t ask you how to act in a moral dilemma. Just roll your d20, add modifiers and determine success or failure. It's that simple, and since moral dilemmas now have CRs, you earn XP, too!

Analyzing a moral dilemma is the equivalent of Searching for a trap, except that you use the Sense Motive skill. A 1st-level paladin gets the Moral Dilemma Analysis ability, which enables him to analyze moral dilemmas with a Sense Motive DC of higher than 20. Resolving a moral dilemma is the equivalent of disarming a trap, except that you use the Knowledge (Religion) skill. At 3rd level, a paladin also gains the Conviction ability which gives him a +1 bonus on Will saves to avoid the ill effects of a moral dilemma. This bonus increases to +2 at 6th level, +3 at 9th level, and so on.

A few moral dilemmas of varying CRs are indicated below. They are presented in abstract form only. The DM is encouraged to add the details as necessary, e.g. whether to attack an evil creature in the wilderness, whether it is right to kill orc babies, whether to decapitate a child molester, etc. Moral dilemmas can affect any character, not just paladins. If a moral dilemma is not successfully analyzed and resolved, the target must make succeed at a Will saving throw or suffer a penalty. The effects of a moral dilemma are permanent until removed by an atonement spell. The effects of moral dilemmas with a CR of 3 or less can also be removed by a remove curse spell. As with traps, the party earns XP for encountering a moral dilemma, regardless of whether it is resolved.

CR 1 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 26, Knowledge (Religion) DC 26, -2 decrease to Charisma (minimum 1), DC 11 Will save negates.

CR 1 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 26, Knowledge (Religion) DC 26, -1 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks, DC 11 Will save negates.

CR 2 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 27, Knowledge (Religion) DC 27, -4 decrease to Charisma (minimum 1), DC 13 Will save negates.

CR 2 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 27, Knowledge (Religion) DC 27, -2 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks, DC 13 Will save negates.

CR 3 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 28, Knowledge (Religion) DC 28, -6 decrease to Charisma (minimum 1), DC 14 Will save negates.

CR 3 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 28, Knowledge (Religion) DC 28, -4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks, DC 14 Will save negates.

CR 3 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 28, Knowledge (Religion) DC 28, Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action, DC 14 Will save negates.

CR 4 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 29, Knowledge (Religion) DC 29, the target functions as if he had gained 4 negative levels (but he does not actually gain negative levels, and does not die if he has 4 or less actual levels), DC 16 Will save negates.

CR 5 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 30, Knowledge (Religion) DC 30, the target loses all class abilities, DC 17 Will save negates.

CR 7 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 32, Knowledge (Religion) DC 32, the target suffers from a continuous confusion effect, as the spell, DC 19 Will save negates.

The CR of a moral dilemma can be increased or decreased by increasing or decreasing the Sense Motive DC, the Knowledge (Religion) DC or the Will save DC. The CR of the moral dilemma increases or decreases by 1 for every five points that each of these is increased or decreased. These adjustments should not reduce any of the DCs to less than 10 or the CR to less than 1.

I found this through your .sig.

I'd like to see some (concrete) examples.

Thanks, -- N

Interesting concept!

Firelance, correct me if I stray from your idea..


As to a concrete example:

CR 1 Moral Dilemma: Sense Motive DC 26, Knowledge (Religion) DC 26, -1 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks, DC 11 Will save negates.

Description: While travelling down the road you encounter a two groups of individuals that are engaged in combat. Both groups are armed and the initiator of the conflict is not immediately obvious. A failed save results in an lack of confidence in your choice of sides, reflected in a minor penalty to combat related abilities.

I like this semi-serious idea! Altho it does need a bit of fleshing out.

Yup, Primitive Screwhead has pretty much got the right idea. The DM defines the moral dilemma and decides what is the "right" solution, and the player rolls dice instead of trying to read the DM's mind and figure out his system of morals. Generally, the higher the CR of the moral dilemma, the more difficult it should be to differentiate between right and wrong, or the more dire the consquences.

So, a CR 1 moral dilemma could be deciding what to do if the party encounters a dying orc in the wilderness - do they save him or leave him to die? If the party successfully analyzes and resolves the moral dilemma, the DM tells them what they are sure is the "right" thing to do. If they fail, each one can still make a Will save to convince himself what they did was right. Those that fail the Will save are overcome by doubt and suffer a small penalty.

A CR 3 moral dilemma might involve the party evacuating a group of unconscious people from a collapsing building. They do not have the resources to get them all to safety and must decide which one (or more) to leave behind: a great hero who has long fought against evil in the world, a brilliant wizard whose inventions have improved the quality of life for the common man, a kindly priest who has done much to alleviate poverty and suffering, or the mother of three young children.

A CR 5 moral dilemma could occur when two countries who have been engaged in a long and terrible war are finally negotiating peace. The party discovers evidence that a disaster that one side thought was an accident was actually purposefully engineered by the other to reap some unfair advantage. If the party brings this evidence to light, it will re-open old wounds and derail the peace process. If the party does not, the guilty parties get away scot-free.

A CR 7 moral dilemma could take place when the party discovers an ancient artifact in a country suffering a deadly plague. If the party invokes the artifact immediately, all who suffer from the plague will be cured, but the plague is likely to return at some point in the future. Properly prepared, the artifact will end the threat of that plague forever, but doing so will take some time, and thousands will die in the interim. The artifact can only be used once. Should the party invoke it immediately or wait?

Naturally, this method wouldn't work for all groups, as some would prefer to roleplay through the moral dilemmas than roll dice. However, even such groups may want to consider that if moral dilemmas can result in bad things happening to the party (or to a party member, like the paladin), they should be deemed threats and challenges, and XP should be awarded for encountering or overcoming them.

FireLance said:

A CR 3 moral dilemma might involve the party evacuating a group of unconscious people from a collapsing building. They do not have the resources to get them all to safety and must decide which one (or more) to leave behind: a great hero who has long fought against evil in the world, a brilliant wizard whose inventions have improved the quality of life for the common man, a kindly priest who has done much to alleviate poverty and suffering, or the mother of three young children.

Click to expand...

See, to me, that's not particularly a moral dilemma -- it's just a dilemma. The correct answer is: the party should sacrifice themselves and then start playing as a new, higher-level party -- the great hero, the brilliant wizard, the kindly priest, and the rogue-like mother of three.

A moral dilemma of CR(low) might be the choice of rescuing either two children or the rich mayor. This could be a CR3 MD because it's got the potentially to appear greedy -- the mayor is rich, but he's also a great guy who helps the poor etc., and saving him is "morally equal" to saving two innocent (but useless) kids.

-- N

Thread necromancy

I saw the link in your .sig, thought it looked interesting, so I cast Speak with Thread.

I think this is really cool.

I think that the DM shouldn't be able to tell the players what the correct action is; they can decide for themselves, if they make the (Sense Motive/Knowledge) roll. If two or more players make the roll, and they have conflicting interpretations of what is right, I'd say that they are all correct (at least in how it effects them). That could lead to interesting conflict in the group.

Is there a difference between making the Will save and making the Sense Motive/Knowledge roll? (Similar to avoiding the trap and disarming it.)

Hi LostSoul, thanks for the kind comments.

I'd actually based the CR 3 moral dilemmas on a bestow curse magical trap, down to the Sense Motive (Search) and Knowledge (religion) (Disable Device) DCs and effects, including the Will save to negate, and the other moral dilemmas were scaled accordingly.

To me, the Will save represents the character's ability to shrug off the knowledge that he didn't do the right thing, instead of getting depressed, or alternatively (for nongood characters) the ability to avoid the karmic forces of the universe.

Having the DM declare what is the right action helps simplify matters, especially if the players might declare mutually incompatible solutions and start playing an acrimonious game of pass the penalty. However, if the players and DM enjoy role-playing in this manner, feel free to adapt the system to the style you prefer.

The main point, after all, is that if the party is going to be threatened and challenged by a moral dilemma, they ought to get XP for resolving it.

I was thinking that if the PCs made the Sense Motive/Knowledge check, they could author the "right action". That is, they can say what the right/moral/immoral action is, and tell everyone else at the table.

DM: "You see a bunch of orc babies. Moral dillema check?"
Paladin PC: "30. Okay, I say something like, 'It is the will of the Three Gods that we slaughter these orc-spawn.'"

If they make the Will save, they can't say what the moral action is, but it doesn't affect them, so they can do whatever they want.

DM: "You see a bunch of orc babies. Moral dillema check?"
Fighter PC: "7. I'll make my Will save... 22. Okay, I'll just kill them then."

If two PCs make the Sense Motive/Knowledge check:

DM: "You see a bunch of orc babies. Moral dillema check?"
Paladin PC: "30. Okay, I say something like, 'It is the will of the Three Gods that we slaughter these orc-spawn.'"
Cleric PC: "33. Okay, I say, 'You have got it wrong. It is our Duty to take these babies and make them into good citizens.'"
Fighter PC: "7. I'll make my will save... 22. Okay, I'll just kill them."

And they are all "moral" choices.

Follow-up to the last example:

DM: "Okay, Cleric PC, the Fighter is advancing on the orc-spawn. Do you stop him? Moral dillema check."
Cleric PC: "28. I'll just watch the Fighter with a look of stern disapproval. Duty to friends comes first."
OR
Cleric PC: "12. Will save 19. I don't think it's right, but I don't stop him."
OR
Cleric PC: "12. Will save 9. I don't think it's right, but I don't stop him."
DM: "Okay, you take a -1 to attacks, saves, and checks."
Cleric PC: "My character is overcome with doubt."


I think that would work better for me, since the players can decide for themselves what the moral thing to do is, without having the DM force them into any one action. It messes with the idea of an absolute alignment though. To me, that's okay; if a player wants to play a Paladin, he's always Lawful Good, no matter what he does (as long as he passes his checks). A Cleric is always upholding the divine message (again, as long as he passes his check).

However, you could allow the highest Sense Motive/Knowledge check to determine what the correct course of action is.

This is a very intriguing system. I like it a lot.

Good stuff on the boards today.

I also found this thread through your signature, and let me just say I am impressed.

Back to your regularly scheduled silence, until the next necromancer finds this thread...