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

[Maxperson]

So you're inferring it, like I suggested you were?

But that's a pure interference, there's nothing to support it beyond the circular logic that because he used the jail, he's part of one of these governments. If he was part, he'd have enough pull to at the very least talk to Prisoner 13.

Why would the adventure avoid saying he was a member of the government? It's bizarre.

It doesn't. Clan = government. Each clan governs itself. He represents the clan per the adventure, therefore he represents the government.

"The Axebreaker dwarves used their influence to have her sentenced to life in prison at Revel’s End."

To "used their influence" is firstly creepy and extrajudicial, and secondly, to me suggests they were not actually one of the official members of the Revel's End Imprisonment Club.

Now you're the one inferring.

If America and 9 other countries shared a prison where all had say in what happened there, then America would have to use it's influence if it wanted to do something with the prison outside of the norm. So it doesn't at all suggest that they are not an official member. It suggests that they did something as you note, creepy and extrajudicial in getting her a life sentence there.

Yes, rather nonsensically he is "Lawful Good Dwarf Noble". Chaotic Good would make 1000% more sense.

I agree. Or even NG, since NG is the alignment most likely to do potentially untasteful things in the pursuit of the greater good.

It's very unclear why they're helping him, too, because their "just go good" motto doesn't really seem to apply - they're here just liberating a surprisingly moderate amount of gold (47k by my maths, assuming Varrin isn't cheating the PCs, which would be even funnier), for a bunch of dwarves who don't appear to actually need it. I wouldn't even agree that giving Clan Axebreaker that gold is a Good act at all, in fact. It's undoubtedly somewhat Lawful, but good? If they were starving or in desperate need or something, sure. But there's absolutely no sign of that.

A few things here. First, it says that Varrin is an old acquaintance of member of the Goldfinger organization. This could be a favor among friends. Or he may have gone to his friend to seek the organizations help. Second, it is a surprisingly moderate sum of money, but they don't know it's that low. Remember, she spent most of the money on setting up her criminal network, so they think it's significantly more than that. Third, I think that restoring to someone property that was stolen from them is a good act. It might not rank near the top of good acts, but I think it still makes the list. Fourth, it seems like the Goldfingers aren't super informed about everything, so they may not know that Varrin is okay with Prisoner 13 potentially being released.

 

[S'mon]

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?

Personally I stopped buying WoTC adventures a while ago. But I've never looked to game designers as a source of moral instruction. That goes for Gary Gygax's view of LG just as much as whoever WoTC is paying (small beans to) these days. My preferred solution is not to use Good & Evil Alignment, and make my own moral judgement. In this case maybe the Golden Vault have some kind of dubious Hollywood Movie morality where it's ok to kill mooks, but not BBEGs? This kind of attitude is historically pretty common IRL. Important People tend to feel affinity with other Important People.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's fine if organizations have clear goals and standards in an adventure. It's fine for the author to say the Golden Vault frowns on certain actions and doing certain actions would affect the party or character's standing in the organization.

What I don't want is the author arbitrarily punishing the party for not following their morality or way of doing things. The stage should be set, not the lines read for the players.

Recently, I've been reading back through some 2E adventure modules and I find myself shaking my head in sections where the author goes out of their way to punish the players if they don't explicitly choose the same solution the author had in mind for the adventure.

Egregious Example - DL16 - World of Krynn, "The Missing Master Lor"

Spoiler

At the end of the adventure, after rescuing a young child, the characters are given three options for a reward:

"A reward then, that is whats called for, a reward. Ah, but I am weakened and can not hold this form long, so you must choose. Her form shudders, but her eye is keen and shrewd. What will it be? Will you accept my thanks and gratitude? Perhaps someday I can bring you good fortune and offer some boon you seek. Or perhaps I can magic my most prized possession here for you , a treasure beyond compare, payment enough for all the agony you have suffered and perhaps you can buy some ease? Still, you have suffered long and hard perhaps twere best you had avoided this ill adventure. Would you have me turn back time so you will be healed of all harms suffered and this adventure will have never been? For this too, I can do. What shall it be? The old hags milky eyes look at you with calculating intelligence, awaiting your decision."

So, if you choose "Turn back time", you get sent back in time (any one who died does come back to life, though), miss the whole adventure and someone else gets the credit. Cue moralizing PSA about "nothing is earned without sacrifice". No reward whatsoever.

If you choose "Treasure" you get a halfling sized owl made of ivory. However, by the time you get back home, it turns into a real normal-sized owl and flies away. Cue moralizing PSA about "wealth is fleeting". No reward whatsoever.

If you choose "Future Favor", you get healed of all damage and anyone who died is brought back to life. Likewise, on your way back to town you find a vein of silver ore (its worth is not mentioned, and this is Dragonlance, which uses steel coins...).

Essentially, you have to guess what the author thinks is the right decision to get a reward, else you get shafted - rather than letting the PCs really make their own choice and go with it.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. It is also right in line with the 1e philosophy of punishing "greedy" wishes.

 

[Emoshin]

I agree, and to quote @pemerton from another thread, it tends to lead to engaging with the rules rather than engaging with the fiction.

I agree too I think, in the sense that if we strip out alignment (which has floating definitions), then that's one less meta layer to argue about.

Theoretically, the advantage would be to make it easier/faster to reach some sort of agreement (or agreement to disagree) when you're not caught up in that meta alignment layer (here's looking at you, Batman).

That said, to keep the eye on the prize, I think we also want to be aware that "the fiction" is also subjective.

For example, say, we are arguing whether demons are capable of True Love. Even if we don't label them Chaotic Evil, my fiction in D&D says a demon could never be capable of true love, because true love is based on positive traits like empathy and compassion, something which demons are not capable of, they can only fake it at best IMO. Another person's fiction, however, might allow a demon to experience love, which opens the door to debate, and so it goes.

For a gold dragon, even if we forgo the question of alignment, my fiction says that gold dragons are predisposed to being good and kind, which includes weighing respect for mortal laws relative to other agendas. Of course, another person's fiction of a typical gold dragon may or will be quite different. Which opens the door to a potential argument, and so it goes.

Removing the alignment framework from all that is still very helpful, I think, and mindfulness that these fictions are still subjective is still a prerequisite to a productive conversation.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think WotC should moralize the PCs in an adventure. When these are created, there are only so many pages you can make it. They still have to have coherency. So pick a side WotC. Start creating adventures for all sides of the coin.

 

[Maxperson]

So if the party uses a perception check and magic to copy the tattoo to use the key to get their reward it's still morally wrong? Because that's one of the options listed in the adventure. Make a perception check to recognize the tattoo is the key, spend 10 minutes either studying it or drawing it, make a skill check, and you've got the key without doing any harm to anyone.

Sure. They might get lucky and deduce that it's the key. That doesn't mean that they know that an illusion will work. It might be a physical key and they might need her hand as well. Knowing that the tattoo is the key doesn't tell them everything that they need to know.

 

[Maxperson]

"In any case, a character must succeed on a DC 15 Intelligence (Arcana) check to correctly re-create the tattoo, which requires 10 minutes of study or drawing" which is under the section "Trade for the key"

I'm wondering how that sentence tracks with the Keen Mind feat. It seems to me like Keen Mind would defeat that challenge.

 

[Maxperson]

10 minutes of drawing indicates the players don't have a photographic memory but remember it well enough to spend some time and ink to try and get it right.

Also they can fail the check and try again.

Studying it OR drawing it. The operative "Or" implies you don't have to study it or cooperate.

Right. 10 minutes of studying her hand or 10 minutes in front of her drawing the tattoo over and over. Unless they have the Keen Mind anyway. That to me gets by that issue.

 

[Maxperson]

If I understand correctly, some of you agree that:

• as written, the Golden Vault "rights moral wrongs" and "always support a just, moral cause" (from here )
• as written, it takes a high DC 19 just to notice the tattoo, and failing that [insert probability here], the adventure as written suggests no other solution to discovering the tattoo unless the PCs aid and abet her with a ledger that she can use to further her criminal activities
• as written, the alternative options explicitly called out in the adventure as written are jailbreak, maiming or killing her
• to repeat again for emphasis, the PCs are working for an organization that "rights moral wrongs" and "always support a just, moral cause" and the above are the only solutions that are examined and explored in the adventure as written
• arguably the most morally correct solutions are actually ones provided here on Enworld and not in the adventure itself at all

What is written is virtually NEVER all that the PCs can do or try that might work.

PCs: "What do you want in exchange for the key?"
13: "I want to read the prisoner files from the Warden's office."
PCs: "That's far too dangerous for us to attempt."
Rogue: "Buuuut, I do have a contact in Calimshan who might be interested in what you have to say. If I put you in contact with him, you can expand your operation into the south and make it much more profitable."
13: "That intrigues me, but I would have to have contact with him before I give you the key."
PCs: "That can be arranged."

She's out for herself and just because the author only wrote one or two ways to resolve the issue, doesn't mean that there aren't 25 more that the PCs can come up with on their own.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So it doesn't at all suggest that they are not an official member.

I guess I just don't see a rando dwarven clan that got robbed being an actual standing member of the Lords' Alliance, but then, who knows? Some dumbass towns with like more sheep than people randomly are. I just wish they'd actually said what they meant, rather than detailing all the tattoos on the body of an explicitly fully-clothed person or how extra-awesome the prison warden was (puking now).

It suggests that they did something as you note, creepy and extrajudicial in getting her a life sentence there.

I mean yeah that is the stronger suggestion and what makes all the LG people being involved even more terminally stupid. I think WotC are just outright cowards, like really scared and pathetic here, that they couldn't portray this prison as LN or LE as it probably should be. They might like offend some part of the US prison-industrial complex. I also strongly suspect this wasn't written or looked over by a POC or other minority writer given it's basically a celebration of prisons (which is highly weird choice for fantasy or science-fiction, I note - in both genres prisons are usually portrayed as very evil places - I think that's bigger than the magitech issue discussed earlier).

I agree. Or even NG, since NG is the alignment most likely to do potentially untasteful things in the pursuit of the greater good.

Yup. Or they could stop using alignments at all and just, y'know, give us a sentence about the personality of the individuals involved!