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

[ForceUser]

As DM, I would totally throw this situation at a group of players. If my players decided as ForceUser's had, I wouldn't be all that upset. I would, however, be upset that they hadn't really discussed it. The encounter is there for an interesting moral dilemma, so dilemminate already, damn you!

Yeah, I think that's what bugged me most of all.

As for Arravis's scenario: wow, should I be flattered? Did you actually take my scenario and apply it to your own campaign?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some DMs always have the PCs run into problems that they can solve, never having an unbeatable scenario in front of them so that the PCs never have to guage whether or not something is beyond them.

I have never met one of these DMs.

Some players look at a situation and think, "What the Doctor do?" I have always been one of those players.

(Okay, sure, the Doctor wouldn't use combat as his first solution. Lets say a combo of the Doctor and Captain Kirk then...."We come in peace! (Shoot to kill!) Scotty, beam me up!")

I have more fun doing what I think is right, and failing, than avoiding something that might be beyond me. This has led to some character deaths. I tend to feel that, as the situation worsens, I'll have several chances to pull my bacon from the fire, so why not at least try?

Mind you, I am not foolish enough to think that anything can be tackled with a combat solution, either. I just think that there is probably a better solution than just walking away before testing the water.

 

[Sarellion]

It´s easier to be heroic at 18th level than at 6th.

But most adventuring groups are more of a mercenary mind.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Han Solo is probably the most beloved of Lucas' creations. Why? Because, of them all, he had the most reason not to get involved, yet constantly got involved the most.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Take a look at the situation:

The Vitlings are warriors who attack anyone they see BUT they obviously were willing to talk to the winter wolves in order to set up the pact against the Cold Ones.

The Vitlings are warriors BUT they need the winter wolves to protect them against the Cold Ones.

The Vitlings attack stangers on sight BUT the one Vitling they met could speak to the party with a common language.

Conclusion: Probably the reputation of the Vitlings is a bit off from the reality.


Next:


The Winter Wolves protect the Vitlings from the Cold Ones, in exchange for the occasional tasty tot.

The Vitlings cannot protect themselves from the Cold Ones.

Conclusion: Either the Cold Ones don't exist (could well be the Winter Wolves themselves, no?) OR the Cold Ones are pretty powerful.

In either case, the winter wolves preferred dealing with the Vitlings to simply attacking the Vitlings and taking what they wanted. Moreover, it is quite possible that, with the Cold Ones to think about, the winter wolves would prefer not to be fighting on two fronts.


There is a lot of weasel-room in here for the PCs to enter into the mix, figure out what's going on, and deal with it accordingly. The Vitlings might make strong allies in finding the buried gnome city....at least in terms of supplies. And, if the party acts as "missionaries" to the Vitlings, the Church is going to be very pleased with them, right?

There are lots of reasons to believe that the situation is open to investigation. There are lots of reasons to investigate, assuming that the characters are good-aligned. There are good reasons to investigate even if they are not. After all, leaving the kid won't stop the pack from hunting them down later, will it? And, if they are going to continue traveling north, wouldn't they want to know more about these Cold Ones?

I would.




RC

 

[GSHamster]

One thing I've found is that players are curiously reluctant to contradict NPCs, especially ones who are not antagonists. I'm not sure why this is, but it might explain your players reaction.

I suspect that if the boy had broken down and gone "but I dont wanna die!", the PCs would have had a far different reaction, regardless of how stacked the odds were against them.

 

[Arravis]

ForceUser, yeah we modified it to fit our campaign. Our group runs a FR campaign, with me as the "main" DM, but we all take turns as DM as well. The adventure wer'e in right now is based around my character, a exiled avariel (wings were cut off for crimes against his people, and no I have never knew of the Baldur's Gate game character, so it's not based on that ). The character is returning to his homeland, which is very far to the north. The DM for this is doing a whole series of cold climate encounters.

Anyway, I read only your post (not the responses since I wanted as "untainted" of a view of the encounter when I experienced it first hand) and emailed this to the DM "This would be an awesome encounter for your game!" along with the link. Anyway, as you can imagine he loved it and intergrated it to his game. He used the inuit people of the region in place of the Vitlings and replaced the "cold ones" with giants and goblins. Made for a great encounter .

 

[Driddle]

Given the information you know about the PCs, the world, and the mission, what would you have done here? I'm very curious to know.

Oh, I don't know. Just about any response can be justified, good or bad. Ala, "I killed because it was the right thing to do," vs. "I didn't kill because it was the right thing to do," followed up with a laundry list of reasons, "And this is why it was right..."

Any two players, given control of the same PC in the same situation, even with a detailed background to rely on, could make two entirely different decisions.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

Based on the descriptions of the party, I do not see what they did as being a viable response. At the very least they should have looked out for the welfare of the boy as they continued along the trek, especially considering that many of the players have "sacrifice the many to save the one" written all over them. And that may not even be the case here. I would shift the alignemnt of all Good PCs one tick to Neutral, and shift the CG characters one tick towards Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I have more fun doing what I think is right, and failing, than avoiding something that might be beyond me. This has led to some character deaths.

We play with the raise dead level loss & new characters come in an extra level lower; taking on too much, failing & dying will lead to the player having the 'sidekick' character who is less capable than their 'peers'.

Basically I encourage caution and punish failure & this where my pov comes from; which is why we have different views I am sure.