Asking for clarification: I know that moral correctness is subjective, but what do you mean by "concerning itself"? I wouldn't classify the example you gave, Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions, as "concerning itself with moral correctness". It says that killing everybody without dialogue is a "bloodbath", but it provides guidance in how your party can complete the adventure without losing anything if they choose that route. There's no downside if you chose the "bad ending".
(PS: It's a genuine doubt, but I'm afraid it sounds adversarial. I'm sorry if it sounds like that, English is not my first language)
Hi Jolly!
Thank you and no worries!
It's been a while, so my recollection is far from perfect here. From what I remember
- Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions was controversial at the time it was released for choosing to apply those words (when it could have been more neutral)
- the antagonists had a scheme that arguably was causing harm or death to innocent unaware people, and could be considered guilty of murder (at worse) or involuntary manslaughter at best (a modern legal term, but I'm just paraphrasing what I remember)
- therefore, for some folks, it sounded like the author or adventure was moralizing players/PCs who chose to use the violent option for whatever reason
- in context, other adventure modules have generally refrained from calling out PC violence against NPCs who cause harm to innocents
- D&D is generally a very violent genre, but every gaming table is accepted to find its moral path, so why was this particular adventure cherrypicking this violent option and calling out it that way whereas no or few other adventure have done so?
I hope that makes sense. I did not fully research this when I wrote the OP, just going by memory!
