A moral dilemma amidst ice and snow--what would you have done?

[helium3]

To FreeTheSlaves:

If everything were as you say, then you'd be right. But you're making a lot of assumptions.

~You're assuming that the hearsay they have heard regarding the territory and its denizens is 100% accurate.

~You're assuming that the entire pack of winter wolves would be able/willing/ordered into combat against the party at the same time.

~You're assuming that the party wouldn't be able to use the terrain to their advantage.

~You're assuming that illusion spells are worthless.


And perhaps the biggest assumption...

~You're assuming I'd present them with a no-win situation.

I can neither confirm nor deny your assumptions, since this is an adventure in progress, but I can point them out.

Had you given the characters any reason to believe any of the above mentioned points, or were you simply expecting your players to assume that there'd be a way to defeat the wolves since everyone knows the DM's not supposed to put PC's into no-win situations? If you were, then you should give your players extra XP for not meta-gaming.

 

[ZuulMoG]

Heroism is one thing. Getting yourself involved with something that has nothing to do with you, against a vastly superior foe, when you have something else you SHOULD be doing, and by the way, you have a deadline, is something completely different.

Han was an independent trader/smuggler, vastly outgunned by the Death Star, and outclassed by Vader, desperately needed to get back to Tatooine to repay Jabba before every bounty hunter in the galaxy fought a no-holds-barred elmination deathmatch for the privelidge of bringing his freshly frozen corpsicle back to Jabba.

...and he STILL came back. That's what makes heroes out of men, and legends out of heroes.

 

[ZuulMoG]

Alignment is NOT a straightjacket, it's a promise your PC makes to himself. If he can't keep the promises he makes to himself, what good is he?

 

[helium3]

Indeed. On the balance, they are a pragmatic bunch not given to acts of daring heroics. All I can do is keep throwing hooks out there hoping for a bite.

Well, you have to give them a reason to be heroic if they're playing not-so-heroic characters. Either, they need to believe they have more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning or there needs to be a really really tastey reward waiting for them at the end.

 

[babomb]

I could actually see a paladin chiding the child for running from duty, and taking him to the wolves directly.

That's no paladin. That's a fighter.

 

[helium3]

Han was an independent trader/smuggler, vastly outgunned by the Death Star, and outclassed by Vader, desperately needed to get back to Tatooine to repay Jabba before every bounty hunter in the galaxy fought a no-holds-barred elmination deathmatch for the privelidge of bringing his freshly frozen corpsicle back to Jabba.

...and he STILL came back. That's what makes heroes out of men, and legends out of heroes.

Han Solo was not a hero. Why? Because it's a story, and the only reason he wasn't killed by Darth Vader is because George Lucas wrote that it would be so.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

And perhaps the biggest assumption...

~You're assuming I'd present them with a no-win situation.

True, assumptions & extrapolations inevitably occur without being there. What I was really objecting to is this notion of "we'll beat them piecemeal with superior tactics" when the WWs have clever tactics themselves. It almost implies that the dm wouldn't play the WWs like the actual pack predators that they are.

I've got nothing against no-win situations, somethings aren't and shouldn't be solvable; the pcs then get the chance to roleplay having to deal with it which imho adds to verisimiltude. Before anyone jumps on this statement, I will qualify that the level of verisimilitude needs to add fun to the game; more than occasional would be _frustrating_.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Had you given the characters any reason to believe any of the above mentioned points, or were you simply expecting your players to assume that there'd be a way to defeat the wolves since everyone knows the DM's not supposed to put PC's into no-win situations? If you were, then you should give your players extra XP for not meta-gaming.

I would expect that a number of the points Forceuser mentioned could be reasoned to by most intelligent individuals.

For instance, let's say you're a winter wolf pack leader. You discover that someone killed the wolf you sent to collect your sacrifice and is taking the sacrifice away. Do you:
A. Immediately take all of your wolves and purse the killers leaving your den unguarded and the entrances to your territory unwatched.
B. Send out scouts to follow the trail of the sacrifice and his rescuers
C. Mount a punitive expedition on the village to teach them the error of their ways for killing your sacrifice collector.
D. Do nothing and just let the cold ones attack the village next week.

Myself, I would guess that option B is the most likely and option A is probably tied with D for least likely.

Or, for his first point. You're in a strange land speaking with a group of self-interested individuals. Do you:
A. Assume that their knowledge is perfect and that they are being absolutely honest with you.
B. Assume that their knowledge is imperfect but that they are being absolutely honest with you.
C. Assume that their knowledge is imperfect and while they are probably mostly being honest with you, they slant whatever information they give you in order to shape your perceptions to their advantage.
D. Assume that not only is their knowledge imperfect, but they are generally trying to manipulate you with disinformation.
E. Assume that their knowledge is perfect but they're being dishonest.

While options D and E might be viable in the abyss and A and B might be viable in Celestia, I would say that C is probably the most realistic conclusion about 99% of NPCs encountered on any earthlike environment.

And, to defend a few more of his points: illusion spells and using terrain to your advantage are up to the cleverness of the players. In general, I would assume that my characters no only can but will use any available terrain to their best advantage and that illusions can be useful though they have their limitations (in this case, non-olfactory illusions are only effective outside of 15-60 feet depending upon the wind). The "no-win situation" is another. A situation is only no-win if you can't figure out a solution that gives you a shot at winning. If you can, you don't assume it's no-win. In this case, I would think that there are a fair number of possible outcomes, some of which are good. And, really, that's the best a player can ask for in a lot of situations.

 

[S'mon]

Leaving aside the annoying metagame arguments about how it's unfair to put PCs in moral quandaries, I think the group acted very Lawful and un-Chaotic in putting the needs of the abstract Many (the vitlings & their mission) above the needs of the present One (the boy). That's assuming it was a CG vs LG debate. If the PCs didn't care about the boy and were looking after their own skin, they were Neutral. I think you can justify their behaviour on any grounds _except_ Chaotic Good. OTOH there was once a story in 2000AD where the very CG Judge Anderson had to kill an innocent boy to stop him being sacrificed in a ceremony that would unleash hell on Earth. She did it, but she sure felt bad about it afterwards. And that was a case where she had no chance to rescue him. My impression of this group is that they are basically acting True Neutral. I think if I were playing CG I'd have taken the boy with me & tried to find a solution. LN I'd have sent him on his way. Neutral, Lawful Good or Neutral Good it would depend on the importance of my assigned mission and likelihood of survival (esp if Neutral). The obvious solution would be to wipe out the Cold Ones and try to reach an agreement with the Winter Wolves if possible.

 

[Pielorinho]

If we're dealing with proper wolf tactics, consider that wolves don't go after the bull moose, the sixteen-point elk, or the mama grizzly bear for their prey: they go after the sick, the young, and the small. That's what these winter wolves were doing as well.

So when one of their pack is killed, they're likely to investigate. When they meet their first fireball, they're very likely to say, "screw this! There's easier dinners in yonder valley!" and take off.

They might use good tactics, but they're not suicide warriors who will fight to the last wolf. They had a great scam going, and it was tasty while it lasted, but it's over now; and they're likely to accept that pretty well and move on after a couple of them are turned to cinder.

Daniel