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

[Nellisir]

In return for the occasional firstborn child...

Firstborn child? Really? That'd flag something for me right there, 'cause...how do the wolves know? Why would they care?

The sacrafices can't be that frequent, no more than one or two a year, since you can't just "have another" firstborn. Every couple only gets one.

Frankly, it sounds like a scam to me. The wolves haven't got any good reason to want "firstborn" children, and they can't be getting enough of them to eat, so they're probably passing them on to the Cold Ones, or creating the Cold Ones. The "protection" works both ways -- if the village is never attacked, the villagers never realize that the wolves are messing with them and the Cold Ones are their "given up for dead" children.

I'd prepare a few stinking cloud scrolls....

Cheers
Nell.

 

[billd91]

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.
<snip>
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.

Here's where I disagree with you. I think they respected the individual boy's wishes by letting him go. Though he presumably didn't want to die, he did want to do his duty to his family.
You see, being lawful or chaotic can lead you to the same conclusion, based on different reasons. The lawful character might have encouraged the party not to interfere with this community's traditions and rituals. A chaotic might have encouraged the party not to interfere because the boy said he didn't want to be saved. Same end result.
Had the boy asked for their help, that would have been a different situation. But because the boy wanted to do the right thing by his family, I think they were amply justified in letting him go on his merry way even if the found the practice distasteful.

 

[Dirigible]

Now if they had a military mindset, they would kidnap the boy, leave the frost wolf pelt where it would be found by the wolves and see to it the wolves did attack the barbarian villiage, softening up both sides.

Remind me to never get on your bad side, MachiavelliTheDM

 

[Dirigible]

A double post? The shame!

 

[Sigg]

Here's my take, based on how I would play the alignments:

Far as I can see, the only one who would truely have a problem trying to save the boy would be Xaephod, as his "self-centered narcissist" nature would make him more concerned with his own skin than with helping anyone....he would argue vehemently against helping.

The Deacon, if I were playing him, would be driven by his good nature to save not only the boy, but the entire barbarian village. Not only is it the right thing to do, in the sense of protecting the lives of innocents, but it might soften up the attitudes of the Vitlings and maybe even create an opportunity for missionary work.

Xaephod's missus would, of course, side with her hubby...but would also relent fairly quickly if he were persuaded or coerced.

Louis would quickly realize that saving not only the child, but the entire Vitling tribe from both the wolves and the Cold Ones would provide a considerable boost to his personal fame as well as providing plenty of fodder for boasting and tall tales in the taverns.

Tharon would agree with the deacon right away...saving both the individual child, and his whole tribe would be the right and good thing to do.

Rurik would go right along with the rest in wanting to save people from the oppresive system currently in place, and even Frostmourne would relish the imminent killing and chaos of battle.

Nothing in the blurb I read indicates that any specific deadline is in place...only that previous delays had occured...so there seems to be no real obstacle to "doing the right thing" in helping the Vitlings. After dispatching the one wolf so quickly I would have been encouraged that they "aren't so tough" and the fact that they would be hunting me down anyway would prompt me to take the fight to them preemptively...perhaps even surprising them. I would reason (at least from the deacon's POV) that if they were truely protecting the Vitlings from the Cold Ones, then by being forced to dispatch them obligated me to deal with the Cold Ones as well in order to avoiding having innocents pay for my actions.

 

[Steverooo]

OTOH there was once a story in 2000AD where the very CG Judge Anderson ...

Nope, not 2300AD. Judge Dread, maybe?

 

[Elxzor]

The fact that time was mentioned as a factor means, that even thought they may not have a given date as a deadline, they may have to find the gnomish city before all the gnomes sufficate from being Buried under the ice.

As good players the main quest is important because you will be saving the lives of everone in the city. (a lot of 'innocent' people) Presumably more people than a village of vitlings.

As a good player, I would allow the boy to sacrifice himself, and explain to the WW's that everything is the fault of some adventurers. This will save the Village of vitlings as long as they continue to sacrifice one to two (or less) children every year. The majority of them are saved. (the majority of those saved are 'innocent')

And it's already been said that on the closer look the boy wants to be sacrificed, and wheather chaotic or lawful, the characters are not going against their alignment by letting him sacrifice himself.

But also, 'saving' this boy could be seen as an evil act. If you are meerly going to kidnap him to keep him alive, you are holding him against his will. Definitly evil right there. If you try to convince him to come with you, or that you will protect the village he may become uncooperative, but maybe that would be worth the try, if you are ultimately trying to destroy their system of mutual survival.

As a player I usually try to follow this: Save the world? Sure Make a species extinct? No, sorry man. Save a princess? Heck yea.

Edit: As a player I might decide to come back later to save the vitlings, because most campaigns I play wouldn't end after saveing a gnomish city. (maybe the campaign would end after it is somehow destroyed despite our efforts though)

 

[S'mon]

Here's where I disagree with you. I think they respected the individual boy's wishes by letting him go. Though he presumably didn't want to die, he did want to do his duty to his family.
You see, being lawful or chaotic can lead you to the same conclusion, based on different reasons. The lawful character might have encouraged the party not to interfere with this community's traditions and rituals. A chaotic might have encouraged the party not to interfere because the boy said he didn't want to be saved. Same end result.
Had the boy asked for their help, that would have been a different situation. But because the boy wanted to do the right thing by his family, I think they were amply justified in letting him go on his merry way even if the found the practice distasteful.

Respecting the boy's Lawful sense of duty doesn't sound very Chaotic to me.
As a Chaotic Good I would think "he's just a child, he's been indoctrinated with this Lawful creed, it's not his genuine choice, *I* know better..."

Actually I find Lawful Evil & Chaotic Good very hard alignments to pin down, and IMC I just use Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic with no Good-Evil axis. I find this works better and saves a lot of headaches.

 

[S'mon]

Nope, not 2300AD. Judge Dread, maybe?

Um, I wrote "2000 AD", y'know the comic that Judge Dredd and Psi-Judge Anderson appear in? *rolls eyes*

 

[Steverooo]

What would I have done?

*I* would have played my PC:

The Ranger listened, as the Vitling lad finished his tale, staring at the lad through slit eyes. His opinions, freely given, were well-known to the party... He was neutral to Law versus Chaos, and ever pointing towards the Good, like a compass needle towards the North. His words were surprising.

"So we leave him... You cannot save one who does not wish to be saved, although why he would run from the wolves, then, I know not. I hear that the Vitlings hold both Honor & Courage dear. The boy's willingness to sacrifice himself shows he has Honor, if not Courage, but then... The Path of the Hero is not for everyone."

I grinned. The Ranger's thinly-veiled needling of the lad worked. He liked being seen as honorable, but not being seen as less-than courageous. He bristled. The Ranger turned from addressing us, to addressing the boy.

"This is a hunt? So you're allowed to fight back?" He reached into one of his Quivers of Ehlonna, and withdrew a Composite Longbow, one of six taken off a batch of recently-deceased Gnolls he had met long before joining our party. He fished his old quiver off the saddlehorn of his warhorse, pulled twenty arrows from his quiver, and stuffed them into his old one, passing it to the boy, along with the bow. He fished in his saddlebags for the other old quiver, from back in the days when he had first started adventuring.

"Anyone remember if Winter Wolves have DR 15/Silver? I don't have any Knowledge (Arcana)." The Illusionist did, of course. "Ah, I have that!" he crowed. "Ah, no, actually! You must be thinking of Lycanthropes, Werewolves, and even then, it's only DR 10/Silver! (Not even Werewolf Lords have DR that high!) No, Winter Wolves can be harmed by ordinary weapons, but fire is your best bet, boy!"

Reaching back, the Ranger produced two torches, and one of those odd devices he was always surprising us with... I asked him about one of them, once. "Custom job!" was his reply... Seems he was never happy with ordinary equipment, and was always "engineering" his own versions, that worked the ways that HE thought they should!

Case in point; this device: A metal coupler that, in a trice, connected the two torches together, end-to-end, with the two flammable ends apart. He handed it to the boy.

"For when they get close... Light both ends. You know how to use a quarterstaff, don't you?" The lad's eyes lit up.

"Too bad you're not coming with us... Wolves circle the herd, but they rarely attack it. Too bad you're dead-set on dying..." (I love how he worked the word "dead" in there!) "If you were coming with us, we could show you some... more interesting ways to kill them... You don't have to be a Wizard or Sorcerer to cast Fireballs, you know!"

Dangle the bait, Ranger! Dangle that bait!