D&D 5E About Morally Correct Outcomes in D&D Adventures [+]

[Paul Farquhar]

Friendly reminder that this is a +++++ thread, which is experimental and means a lot of things, including positive contributions to the "What if"? hypothetical premise in the OP.

The hypothetical premise includes the possible question of what moral framework the author of the adventure might be leveraging

As I have stated, the idea that the author is pushing a moral agenda is morally objectionable and highly inapropiate for D&D.

, not putting the onus on the players for this specific thread.

I cannot say for sure, but I am feeling a little worried that your posts are inching away from the OP premise.

I find your premise morally objectionable. As I have said, if you do not like what I have to say, feel free to block me.

I just wanted to check in with you and see if you're OK with aligning your posts to the thread rules of engagement?

Not if they conflict with my moral values. But there is no thread "ownership" on this forum. I have attempted to interpret your topic in a polite and generous fashion, but if you don't like my opinions, you are not in a position to silence me.

 

[Emoshin]

I find your premise morally objectionable. As I have said, if you do not like what I have to say, feel free to block me.

Not if they conflict with my moral values. But there is no thread "ownership" on this forum.

Ah, I see. The OP requests this

Again, nobody is forcing you to agree with anything, just saying if you don't have a positive contribution to make here, please take it another thread.

If the poster refuses to accept the [+] thread, let me check in with Enworld on what the forum rules say.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't actually consider the destruction of the Death Star a morally ambiguous ending. Anyone who died on board the station was an active combatant engaged in a (civil) war, who had participated in outright war crimes (the destruction of Alderaan, an explicitly civilian target.) Preventing the commission of even more war crimes by destroying the Death Star is not some sort of horrible mass murder. It is a terrible loss of life, and the deaths of the crew absolutely should be mourned (because all deaths are tragedies!), but it is not something to beat oneself up over.

I wasn't referring to the people on the Death Star. Killing them is morally correct.

It's the Ewoks that will be wiped out in the ensuing ecological disaster caused by a moon-sized hunk of metal exploding while above their planetoid.

It's the inhabitants of Endor itself who will be wiped out by the destruction and the ecological fallout of the reactor core explosion. The material of the death star and the radiation don't vanish instantly.

Basically the Rebel Alliance saved themselves by damning an entire planet and it's moons to utter devastation for generations to come. Victory!

Depending on a person's specific moral identity, and philosophical ideals, the Rebel Victory could be a war crime.

*You can see a reversed version of this (killing someone innocent, albeit unpleasant, in order to ensure that their people ally with the "player character" allies) in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "In the Pale Moonlight." TL;DR: The station commander recruited an ex-spy to get the Romulans to help in the war against the Dominion. It works...but only because a Romulan senator and his two bodyguards, all innocents, were murdered by the ex-spy. It is a genuine victory for "the good guys" (Sisko himself says that much) that the Romulans are now helping, but it was won through blatantly immoral means--and Sisko finds that he can live with his guilty conscience, somewhat to his surprise.

LOVE that episode!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's the Ewoks that will be wiped out in the ensuing ecological disaster caused by a moon-sized hunk of metal exploding while above their planetoid.

It's the inhabitants of Endor itself who will be wiped out by the destruction and the ecological fallout of the reactor core explosion. The material of the death star and the radiation don't vanish instantly.

Star Wars canon says that didn't happen - the rebels intervened to prevent it.

 

[Steampunkette]

Star Wars canon says that didn't happen - the rebels intervened to prevent it.

They screened Bright Tree Village, where the celebration with the Ewoks happened, according to Canon.

But screening one village on one moon does not a planet protect. Nor a moon. And the wreckage that landed on the moon itself included AN ENTIRE STAR DESTROYER. Whole ship. Bam. Into the moon.

The Rebels protected one village that had helped them, and left everyone else to die.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It's the Ewoks that will be wiped out in the ensuing ecological disaster caused by a moon-sized hunk of metal exploding while above their planetoid.

I always thought that the explosion pulverized the station sufficiently that Endor developed a silver ring.

Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts.

 

[Umbran]

I find your premise morally objectionable.

Mod Note:
While the OP may not have been as clear in its setup as it could have been, this is a (+) thread, and if you aren't on board with its general topic of discussion, you should take that objection to some other thread.

 

[Steampunkette]

I always thought that the explosion pulverized the station sufficiently that Endor developed a silver ring.

Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts.

Novels. Wound up getting retconned with most of the Expanded Universe. In the canon-canon debris hits the moon and planet. Big chunks, too.

Mostly it's because the writers didn't consider the impact of the sheer mass involved, gravity, and radiation. They tried to "Fix It" in a later novel. And then Disney retconned the novel, unfixing it again.

Because, as noted, writers have different moral identities, even when they -do- consider the full ramifications of what they're writing.

And sometimes they don't consider.

 

[Irlo]

Novels. Wound up getting retconned with most of the Expanded Universe. In the canon-canon debris hits the moon and planet. Big chunks, too.

Mostly it's because the writers didn't consider the impact of the sheer mass involved, gravity, and radiation. They tried to "Fix It" in a later novel. And then Disney retconned the novel, unfixing it again.

Because, as noted, writers have different moral identities, even when they -do- consider the full ramifications of what they're writing.

And sometimes they don't.

Realistic consequences based a real-world science are in short supply in the Star Wars films.

 

[Steampunkette]

Realistic consequences based a real-world science are in short supply in the Star Wars films.

S'true.

But the same can be said about D&D. And any other form of fantasy.