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

[Imaculata]

Complex moral questions can be fun to include in an adventure, especially if the DM does not make a ruling what the good and bad decissions are. As soon as the DM rules what the good ending is, I feel it takes away some of the player's agency.

Consider for example this situation, which I introduced in my campaign. A zealous religious group controls a large city, whose main export product is lumber. But in expanding their lumbering operation, they unknowingly cut down the sacred grove of a small group of druids. Furious with this act, the druids start a long campaign of violence against the city. Basically terrorism; which also hurts a lot of innocents. They poison the water supply, send a vengeful forest spirit to attack the workers, and place a horrible curse on the leader of the church. The leader's son has to take over his now bedridden father's position, and intensifies actions against the druids. Eventually one of the druids gets caught, and is thrown in prison.

Eventually the players get into a battle against the entire church, and seek to remove them from power. But first, they must spring their allies from prison. It is here that they meet the imprisoned druid, who proves a useful ally in their prison break. However, it is pretty clear that once he is free, he will continue his actions against the city. What do you do?

As a DM, I stayed clear from making any moral judgement here. The grievances of the druids are understandable, especially against a much more powerful foe. But they have taken their lust for revenge beyond what is reasonable, and are hurting innocents in the process. On the other hand, the church's rule must end. But taking a whole city is no easy chore, so the players need all the help they can get. It's an interesting question.

 

[Tonguez]

It also states that they tried all sorts of things, including magical compulsion, to get her to cooperate before she was sent to Azkaban Revel’s End, so clearly they’re a bit desperate and are looking to try a different tack.

Didnt seem hard at all to get her talk to a random adventurer though.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Didnt seem hard at all to get her talk to a random adventurer though.

That's cause they are going to do stuff for her. (And not involve the warden)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This thread is based on a failure of English Language comprehension*. The word "good" has multiple meanings. In this context it means "most desirable" (the opposite of "bad"). It does not mean "moral" (the opposite of "evil").


*I could go off on a rant about how poorly Comprehension is taught in schools these days, but that would be well off topic.

 

[Tonguez]

That's cause they are going to do stuff for her. (And not involve the warden)

That still makes no sense - apparently, this prison is run by the Lord's Alliance with the warden a Lawful Good Mage) as a single 'neutral' vote alongside the other parole board members. Theres nothing to suggest that the warden has any greater authority over prisoners and absolutely no reason why any other Council member cant cut a deal with Prisoner 13. If the PCs entered as agents of the Axebreakers there would be no reason for the Warden to not allow it nor any reason why the warden would care about the Dwarfs wanting their key back

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the PCs entered as agents of the Axebreakers there would be no reason for the Warden to not allow it nor any reason why the warden would care about the Dwarfs wanting their key back

It's pretty clear that has already been tried and failed. Prisoner 13 is not going to cooperate with ether council members or Axebreaker agents, and the warden is not going to allow other methods of coercion: torture, mind control or promises of escape.

 

[Flamestrike]

Complex moral questions can be fun to include in an adventure, especially if the DM does not make a ruling what the good and bad decissions are. As soon as the DM rules what the good ending is, I feel it takes away some of the player's agency.

How?

I'm a little confused. Like are you saying that if I (the DM) rule that 'engaging in genocide of the entire town' instead of 'negotiating a truce with them and living side by side peacefully' is the evil option, I've somehow taken away the agency of my players to engage in that genocide?

I haven't affected their agency at all. They were free to commit genocide, just like they were free to negotiate a peace treaty.

If (in my game world) 'Evil' is defined as 'harming others, other than in self-defense or the defense of others where no other option is reasonably available to you and in a proportionate manner to that threat' and 'Good' is defined as 'avoiding evil and engaging in altruism, charity and mercy and putting the needs of others above your own' from where I sit, I would be perfectly entitled to make some kind of ruling that the actions of those PCs was evil (in that game world).

How their characters (or even their players) choose to perceive that act is up to them of course. They're perfectly in their rights to justify the genocide all they want to, and genuinely believe they did a 'good deed'.

Im just ruling the Gods feel otherwise.

 

[TheSword]

That still makes no sense - apparently, this prison is run by the Lord's Alliance with the warden a Lawful Good Mage) as a single 'neutral' vote alongside the other parole board members. Theres nothing to suggest that the warden has any greater authority over prisoners and absolutely no reason why any other Council member cant cut a deal with Prisoner 13. If the PCs entered as agents of the Axebreakers there would be no reason for the Warden to not allow it nor any reason why the warden would care about the Dwarfs wanting their key back

Any greater authority? They are the warden… “how can you be so obtuse?

I suspect once you have claimed a prisoner is bad enough to go into Revel’s End it’s not so easy to simply change your mind.

 

[delericho]

IMO, it's perfectly fine for WotC or another publisher to take a moral stance in one of their adventures (or other book). It's also entirely you're prerogative to disagree with that moral stance.

And if you find that you disagree strongly enough with their stance, it's entirely right for you to say so, to not buy the product in question, and indeed to stop buying other products from that publisher, as you see fit.

 

[TheSword]

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?

I like the adventures though I probably will tone down the Magitech, which is not difficult at all. I also don’t have a problem with you wanting more explicit alternatives to solving the mission. I think it’s ok to want more of something you once saw in a Monte Cook module.

I think the author is also fine to publish a module that sets a new base for adventure and it not quite confirm to your moral outlook. It’s a heist for cripes sake. It’s not supposed to be black and while and simple. It’s supposed to have moral quandaries, folks you don’t know whether you can trust or not, folks you know you absolutely can’t trust but you try and work out when they’re going to screw you so you can screw then first), and most of all there are supposed to be reversals of fortune. Bad guys will be released, good guys will be captured and often times many of the characters in the location won’t know which are which. This is not a campaign for your Paladin of Tyr character - I hope you can see that.

Published modules are a box of choices and options. If the Golden Vault as an organization doesn’t work for your moral outlook don’t use them… that ok. It’s also ok to want to use them … it’s not immoral. Or rather I don’t really care if you think it is because everyone is entitled to play your own way. They’re a plot device to get characters to adventures and potentially link them together. They’re also a mystery - left to the DM to determine their exact motives. I personally prefer them as shadowy and mysterious.

Spoiler: Don’t read Guy, Pete or Ryan

Then I can have it as a secret organisation founded by Manshoon masquerading as a golden dragon, with the deliberate aim of sowing disruption in the realms, undermining/corrupting good organizations like the Lords Alliance and expanding his power base. The whole don’t kill element is just a way of Manshoon toying with/avoiding paying the reward for the PCs work. In truth he’s happy to keep a potential useful future pawn on the table

The more I think of it this book reads like it could complement Dragon Heist very well. Use some of the modules to replace some of the elements of DH I wasn’t so pleased with. Use the powerful competing organizations all desperate for money alongside the PCs. Based out of Waterdeep but travelling all over the realms… with a final 11th level heist… to rob the Lair of the Mad Wizard himself! I’ll create a mash up thread on it when the full book is out.