D&D 5E Is it right for WoTC to moralize us in an adventure module?

[Emoshin]

In the recent Prisoner 13 adventure, to me the adventure submits that there is a morally "better" ending and the other endings are morally problematic.

Spoilers for non-DMs or whomever plans to play this adventure:

Spoiler: Do NOT read unless you are OK to know how it ends

The "good" ending is that the PCs aid and abet the Neutral Evil criminal mastermind with a ledger of all the names, crimes, and prisoner numbers of everyone ever incarcerated at this prison. In exchange, the client gets their stolen gold back.

In this ending, the mastermind criminal then relays the information to her agents for later use. What exactly will happen as a result is unclear. Maybe the information will be sold and enable a mass murderer to escape the prison one day to torture more innocents. Who can know for sure? There's nothing in the adventure that allows PCs to ascertain or trust what exactly would happen, but it seems like whatever it is, it nets out to be "good" because the client will get their stolen treasure?

Meanwhile, the "bad" ending is bad because it is gruesome to hurt or kill the criminal mastermind, and "the organization would not approve of this method" so the PCs get no reward at all.

Unfortunately, the adventure offers exactly zero guidance here for DMs and players. It moralizes us with the different endings without context or assurance that the "good" ending is actually the morally correct one.

One could say that the author themselves is not trying to moralize which ending is good or bad, as it is only conveyed as the opinion of the organization in the fiction.

However, even if that were so, it is interesting that the adventure utterly fails to provide any guidance or clarity on the consequences of the PCs action should they choose the "good" ending. Can the PCs know this outcome is "good" if they don't or can't assess the consequences of aiding and abetting a criminal mastermind?

I have felt a similar serious cognitive dissonance with the presumptuously singular ending of The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and of course the controversial moralizing in Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions of Candlekeep Mysteries.

I know many gaming tables are comfortable with whatever-goes/chaotic PC actions, or shades-of-grey plot lines. I also understand that some D&D players prioritize redemption arcs over accountability for evil actions. So I acknowledge this moral quandary may not be a quandary for everyone.

However, for me, I am seriously disturbed by what's happening out there in the real world. Horrible awful things are happening every day, over which I have no control. D&D is my escape from reality. I get to day-dream a fictional world where good people can effectively bring more good to the world. At my gaming table, I simply don't feel comfortable putting my players in a position that affects their conscience. Which means I have to lean through that discomfort, futilely wish that WoTC had been more intentional or nuanced with their moralizing, and rewrite the adventure for my table.

If/when your moral code does not jive with a moral position that is implied in a WoTC adventure, how do you react? What would you like to see ideally?

 

[bedir than]

In the recent Prisoner 13 adventure, to me the adventure submits that there is a morally "better" ending and the other endings are morally problematic.

Spoilers for non-DMs or whomever plans to play this adventure:

Spoiler: Do NOT read unless you are OK to know how it ends

The "good" ending is that the PCs aid and abet the Neutral Evil criminal mastermind with a ledger of all the names, crimes, and prisoner numbers of everyone ever incarcerated at this prison. In exchange, the client gets their stolen gold back.

In this ending, the mastermind criminal then relays the information to her agents for later use. What exactly will happen as a result is unclear. Maybe the information will be sold and enable a mass murderer to escape the prison one day to torture more innocents. Who can know for sure? There's nothing in the adventure that allows PCs to ascertain or trust what exactly would happen, but it seems like whatever it is, it nets out to be "good" because the client will get their stolen treasure?

Meanwhile, the "bad" ending is bad because it is gruesome to hurt or kill the criminal mastermind, and "the organization would not approve of this method" so the PCs get no reward at all.

Unfortunately, the adventure offers exactly zero guidance here for DMs and players. It moralizes us with the different endings without context or assurance that the "good" ending is actually the morally correct one.

One could say that the author themselves is not trying to moralize which ending is good or bad, as it is only conveyed as the opinion of the organization in the fiction.

However, even if that were so, it is interesting that the adventure utterly fails to provide any guidance or clarity on the consequences of the PCs action should they choose the "good" ending. Can the PCs know this outcome is "good" if they don't or can't assess the consequences of aiding and abetting a criminal mastermind?

I have felt a similar serious cognitive dissonance with the presumptuously singular ending of The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and of course the controversial moralizing in Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions of Candlekeep Mysteries.

I know many gaming tables are comfortable with whatever-goes/chaotic PC actions, or shades-of-grey plot lines. I also understand that some D&D players prioritize redemption arcs over accountability for evil actions. So I acknowledge this moral quandary may not be a quandary for everyone.

However, for me, I am seriously disturbed by what's happening out there in the real world. Horrible awful things are happening every day, over which I have no control. D&D is my escape from reality. I get to day-dream a fictional world where good people can effectively bring more good to the world. At my gaming table, I simply don't feel comfortable putting my players in a position that affects their conscience. Which means I have to lean through that discomfort, futilely wish that WoTC had been more intentional or nuanced with their moralizing, and rewrite the adventure for my table.

If/when your moral code does not jive with a moral position that is implied in a WoTC adventure, how do you react? What would you like to see ideally?

Isn't the "good" here in relationship to the Lawful Good organization (Golden Vault) that has hired the party and not an official position of Wizards of the Coast?

 

[Emoshin]

Isn't the "good" here in relationship to the Lawful Good organization (Golden Vault) that has hired the party and not an official position of Wizards of the Coast?

Sure, I was thinking of that when I wrote "One could say that the author themselves is not trying to moralize which ending is good or bad, as it is only conveyed as the opinion of the organization in the fiction"

But then it still boggles my mind why a Lawful Good organization (as much as I understand the definition of LG) would evaluate the situation from beginning to end that way.

 

[pukunui]

I can sympathize with your sentiments.

That said, I feel like we need more info on what the Golden Vault stands for (which will be in the intro section of the book) before we can really make a proper judgment call.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, the prisoner is locked away safely in an anti-magic cell. Chopping off her arm definitely isn't necessary from the perspective of the LG organization. Besides, the genre is all about having to make lesser-evil type decisions.

 

[LordEntrails]

Yes it is acceptable for an adventure to present good and bad solutions. Entertainment has been moralizing stories and outcomes since it's inception with the dawn of intelligence (as far as we know). Homer and the Iliad for instance. Shakespeare, Game of Thrones, Marvel, Wednesday.

Even previous D&D adventures have done so. Perhaps they have not used the phrasing like this one does, but D&D has often been presented as do-gooders, murder hobos, etc, and their actions. This is not new to the world, or to D&D.

edit: Oh, and why would one assume a DM must run a published adventure as written? Certainly we are told to adjust NPCs and story lines to suit our desires, why not this?

 

[Retreater]

How about "it's not right for an adventure writer to dictate what the 'right' course of actions are to 'win' a scenario?"

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Pretty sure the Golden Vault is Neutral or Chaotic Good, not Lawful Good.

Anyway it's fine. Mutilating the prisoner is considered unneeded by the Golden Vault so if they are involved they won't reward people that do that.

 

[Emoshin]

I mean, the prisoner is locked away safely in an anti-magic cell. Chapping off her arm definitely isn't necessary from the perspective of the LG organization. Besides, the genre is all about having to make less-evil type decisions.

Actually the adventure is clear that the prisoner is still operating as normal despite the anti magic.

I agree that protagonists in The Witcher and Game of Thrones could be about making less-evil type decisions.

I think D&D (at least my D&D) is about the right to make good decision, not just less evil ones.

Also I am still frustrated trying to understand why a LG organization would decide it is good and lawful to:

• violate the jurisdiction of the prison
• condone unlawfully breaking into a prison
• etc. etc.
• all for materialistic enrichment (gold)?

If they are LG, why didn't they follow legal procedures, send an agent to diplomatically allow access to the prisoner and, say, look we need to talk to your prisoner in order to release the funds to our client? To me, that's lawful good.

Then you might, say, well that's not a fun adventure. So then I'd say: true, so why not restructure the adventure plot so it doesn't put us in this awkward situation?

 

[Reynard]

How about "it's not right for an adventure writer to dictate what the 'right' course of actions are to 'win' a scenario?"

Off topic but yeah: This is the situation. These are the actors. This is what happens if the PCs do nothing. Go.