Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Semi-serious] Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 2681291" data-attributes="member: 386"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>DM: "You see a bunch of orc babies. Moral dillema check?"</p><p>Paladin PC: "30. Okay, I say something like, 'It is the will of the Three Gods that we slaughter these orc-spawn.'"</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>DM: "You see a bunch of orc babies. Moral dillema check?"</p><p>Fighter PC: "7. I'll make my Will save... 22. Okay, I'll just kill them then."</p><p></p><p>If two PCs make the Sense Motive/Knowledge check:</p><p></p><p>DM: "You see a bunch of orc babies. Moral dillema check?"</p><p>Paladin PC: "30. Okay, I say something like, 'It is the will of the Three Gods that we slaughter these orc-spawn.'"</p><p>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.'"</p><p>Fighter PC: "7. I'll make my will save... 22. Okay, I'll just kill them."</p><p></p><p>And they are all "moral" choices.</p><p></p><p>Follow-up to the last example:</p><p></p><p>DM: "Okay, Cleric PC, the Fighter is advancing on the orc-spawn. Do you stop him? Moral dillema check."</p><p>Cleric PC: "28. I'll just watch the Fighter with a look of stern disapproval. Duty to friends comes first."</p><p>OR</p><p>Cleric PC: "12. Will save 19. I don't think it's right, but I don't stop him."</p><p>OR</p><p>Cleric PC: "12. Will save 9. I don't think it's right, but I don't stop him."</p><p>DM: "Okay, you take a -1 to attacks, saves, and checks."</p><p>Cleric PC: "My character is overcome with doubt."</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that would work better <em>for me</em>, 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).</p><p></p><p>However, you could allow the highest Sense Motive/Knowledge check to determine what the correct course of action is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 2681291, member: 386"] 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 [i]for me[/i], 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Semi-serious] Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic
Top