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

[anton1066]

Player: "I walk up to the baby and make a moral dillema check"
DM: What?
Player: What did i stutter?
DM: No. Why do you want to make a moral dillema check?
Player: So that if I make it i can justify stealing his candy in order to stop his teeth from rotting.
DM: ????
Player *roll* Yay! Now give me the Exp for stealing candy from a baby morally.

 

[genshou]

Well, obviously it requires some DM adjucation.

 

[Jack Simth]

Player: "I walk up to the baby and make a moral dillema check"
DM: What?
Player: What did i stutter?
DM: No. Why do you want to make a moral dillema check?
Player: So that if I make it i can justify stealing his candy in order to stop his teeth from rotting.
DM: ????
Player *roll* Yay! Now give me the Exp for stealing candy from a baby morally.

DM: Not quite.... first, make a Will save
Player: ????
DM: Well, all babies have Charm Person at-will as an immediate action... DC's horrendus....
Player: *roll* Let's see... with my modifier, that 19 translates to a 29. Hah!
DM: Sorry; you just can't see yourself taking anything from such a cute little baby.....

 

[FireLance]

Me, I'd say deciding whether or not to take candy from a baby is a CR 0 moral dilemma, and nets you the same amount of xp.

Really, it's along the same lines as: "I balance a bucket of water over the half-open door and walk through it. How much xp do I get for triggering the trap?"

 

[Bront]

I never liked judging PCs based on a single moral choice. Very few actions are so immediately evil (or good, or chaotic, or lawful), that they alone will impact your allignment or view. And there are many that are along the lines of a more middle ground, and often, a consistant belief and acting upon it can be quite moral, or even changing what your character thought was moral because he learned something new.

This system is interesting, and has some merits, but many of the morality challenges are not moral as much as how others view you (Particularly the Mayor vs the 2 little kids one).

Let's revisit the baby example with the Paladin.

Paladin finds 3 orc infants, and decides to slay them, since he and his order have taught that orcs are evil with no redemption. Later, this same Paladin is left for dead by bandits and saved by an Orc. Is this Orc evil? Is his order and all he has been taught wrong?

That's a moral delema to me. A bit oversimplified, but still.

 

[genshou]

DM: Not quite.... first, make a Will save
Player: ????
DM: Well, all babies have Charm Person at-will as an immediate action... DC's horrendus....
Player: *roll* Let's see... with my modifier, that 19 translates to a 29. Hah!
DM: Sorry; you just can't see yourself taking anything from such a cute little baby.....

Someone around here has a sig with a situation similar to this, in which it says that we see a kitten playing with a ball of yarn or some such, and to make a Will save vs. cute at DC 40.

BTW, congrats on hitting 1,000!

 

[genshou]

This system is interesting, and has some merits, but many of the morality challenges are not moral as much as how others view you (Particularly the Mayor vs the 2 little kids one).

I'm not particularly fond of the examples either, but if you use this system for virtue matters rather than reputation, it looks like it should work fine. And I do like your example, but that's not the sort of moral dilemma that I think of when I view these mechanics. I see those immediate, day-to-day (for adventurers) decisions that need an answer immediately, or pretty close. The idea that teachings about killing orc babies, if revealed in the manner you suggest, wouldn't be as much of a moral dilemma to me as it would be a long-term character development point.

 

[Cadfan]

I thank you, Firelance, for a good laugh.

I, too, hate and loathe DMs who play "everybody guess my bizarre moral convictions or be punished severely!"

 

[IceFractal]

Amusing but useful system. I does seem like there needs to be some kind of modifier by alignment in there though - right now, the Exalted Saint Paladin can shrug off killing townsfolk much, much easier than the CE Psychotic Frenzied Berserker, due to the Will save. I'm thinking maybe a chart, from most affected to least affected, that modified the save DCs and penalties (certainly a NE Cleric of Nerull shouldn't lose any class features for killing off innocent townsfolk):

Saint
Exalted
Good
Neutral
Evil
Inhuman Evil*
Total Outsider**

* like a Lich
** something that had no concept of morality, like a newly awakened construct.

 

[airwalkrr]

When I first read this, I honestly thought it was a joke. I thought to myself "sooner or later the DM won't even have to describe ANYTHING! He just has the players roll some dice, then he tells them whether they succeed or not." Imagine the following scene:

Player 1: That dungeon was tough. Let's head home.
Player 2: Good idea. DM, We'll distribute the loot evenly amongst ourselves to share the burden and then ride home.
DM: Excellent. *rolls some dice* Uh oh. Looks like a random encounter. You see a grumpy dwarf standing next to a halfling in the middle of the road who is craddling a wounded pixie.
Player 3: Oh no! This has moral dilemna written all over it.
Player 4: It's times like these I wish we had a paladin in the party. I hate stumbling into moral dilemnas on every road we travel!
Player 1: Hold on, guys. Remember I have a paladin cohort! And I just rolled a 28 on my Sense Motive check. Does my cohort detect the presence of the moral dilemna.
DM: Are you within 10 feet?
Player 1: Yes.
DM: Very well. You do indeed detect a moral dilemna.
Player 1: Whoa! Stand back, everyone. I don't want you be affected by this so just let me handle it. *rolls dice* Whew. I got a 31 for my Knowledge (religion) check. Is that good enough to solve the moral dilemna?
DM: Yes, it is. The dwarf smiles and helps the pixie clean the halfling guts off her clothes. The two then leave your group hand-in-hand.
Player 3: Um... What just happened?
Player 4: Remember that a check to solve a moral dilemna doesn't actually require any in-character knowledge about how it was solved. The check just simplifies the roleplaying so we can get on with the game.
Player 3: Oh yea! Now I know.
GI Joe: And knowing is half the battle.

Sorry, it just seems a little silly to me. But after reading it a little more carefully, I think I understand what you mean. I've often used Knowledge (religion) checks as a way for a character to figure out the appropriate action for their alignment, and I guess this is kind of similar.