A Moral Dilemma

[Kahuna Burger]

What if you changed the "much needed supplies" to "a much need MacGuffin"? That's how I read the question. And voted minimum force.

I think it's an interesting question. Also interesting that some people want to ratchet down the tension by saying that it doesn't/can't apply. The way I see it, it's a hypothetical question and you treat its assumptions as valid or else you aren't even answering the question.

Er, isn't turning "supplies" into "MacGuffin" just as easily seen as artificially ratchetting up the tension? If the question was about the small village idol which as it turns out has world shaking ramifications, but the devout villagers won't give up willingly because it is after all their god.... Thats not a "supply", and the reason they won't sell it to you is right there. So, no, thats not the question as it was orriginally stated or expanded on. If you want to answer a different question than asked, thats fine, but don't criticise others for doing a lesser version of the same thing.

 

[LostSoul]

So, no, thats not the question as it was orriginally stated or expanded on. If you want to answer a different question than asked, thats fine, but don't criticise others for doing a lesser version of the same thing.

The way I see it, you need those "much needed supplies". Saying that "We don't need those much needed supplies" takes the tension down a notch. Changing the question to make it more explicit that you do, in fact, need those supplies is more in line with (how I read) the original question.

 

[devilbat]

The two Lawful Neutral members of the party would attempt at diplomacy to negotiate with the elders. If they fail, they would leave. The NE, N and NG members would break in after the sun goes down, take what they need, and leave.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The way I see it, you need those "much needed supplies". Saying that "We don't need those much needed supplies" takes the tension down a notch. Changing the question to make it more explicit that you do, in fact, need those supplies is more in line with (how I read) the original question.

Whereas I simply read it as a not very well thought out question. I don't feel the need to respect and keep artificial tension. It may be that we "need" the supplies in order to maintain our current level of activity and not get bogged down in some boring hunting traveling and repairing our own tents, but thats not the same as actual "need or die" need. I see no reasonable way to translate the question from the former to the latter without a whole new question.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Take your multiple weapons, bushels of armour, fancy mounts, magical acoutrements, and lofty swagger out of the village...bury them. Then approach the village as common folk looking for a nights rest and a good meal. Or, perhaps the next town.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The two Lawful Neutral members of the party would attempt at diplomacy to negotiate with the elders. If they fail, they would leave. The NE, N and NG members would break in after the sun goes down, take what they need, and leave.

[hitchhiker's] This is a new and interesting definition of "good" that I was not previously aware of.... [/hitchhiker's]

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Take your multiple weapons, bushels of armour, fancy mounts, magical acoutrements, and lofty swagger out of the village...bury them. Then approach the village as common folk looking for a nights rest and a good meal. Or, perhaps the next town.

winnah!

 

[smilinggm]

Question:
"Your party stops at a village for much needed supplies. The village elder won't sell or give you any, and can't be persuaded otherwise; he's not evil, he just doesn't seem to trust you. The party is strong enough to take the supplies by force. What would your party do?"

Notes:
Definitely not one for the paladins, since they're never in a moral dilemma.
If you choose option 4, examples would be appreciated

IMHO this is not truly a moral desion, this is a choice of ethics. What you are realy asking is how evil is your party. Is your party willing to use force to take whatever they want or think that they need. Any good or even neutral alligned party should leave and seak supplies elsewhere. You aso stated that the party is strong enough to take this village by force. Thus implying that, they are not in true danger of starving to death if they leave. Now if this same party had been lost in the destert for weeks before finding this Oasis, and they were on the brink of death due to stavation, and the village refuesed to even sell the party food and water, then force might be warranted. But even then a good party should only use non-lethal force.

Now to challenge your idea that Paladins are never in a moral delima two harsh moral choices for your palidins to face.

Delima 1)
Your party has been on the open seas for several weeks, as the captain steers the ship in to the harbor, the party notices several disturbing things. The sky is begining to fill with black clouds of dust and fire from the volcano that just erupted. That the harbor is empty of other ships. That there is a large croud of people on the docks looking desparatly at your party's ship. You estimate that you have about 15 min window to get out of the harbor safely before this harbor is filled with the pyroclastic flow . Your ship is not a large vessel but you estimate that it could carry about 50 more adults before it is overloaded and will capisize. There are about 300 men women and children crouded on the docks. Even overloaded your ship should have enough speed to get back into open water befoe the harbor is destroyed by the volcano. Anyone left on the harbor when the flow hits will be killed. This ship can be operated by a 4 man crew and you have a party of 6 abord with 8 crewman operating the ship for the party. What do you do with your 15 min? Do you dock and load as many villagers as possible, Do you imediatly turn the ship around to open water. Do you give up your spot on the ship so that several children may live. You do not have any way to stop the flow from hitting the harbor ie wish. What do you do???

Delima 2)
Your kingdom is at war. Your King's castle is under attack. The Attack is being lead by a Githyanki riding Red Dragons. The battle is not going well. Your king is leading the counterattack vs this force. Your party the only thing standing between this force and utter defeat. Runners arrive at the castle with news that a nearby village that is under your kings protection has just been attacked by a squad of Githyanki. Your king orders your party to rush to the village and save the people there. You know that if you leave that the forces here will be overwelmed and your king will die. Without your help everyone in the village will die. Do you commit treason and stay with your king and save him or do you follow his commnad and go save the village and thus letting your king die. What do you do?
Just to twist the knife a little, you had sent your family to this village to hide just incase this castle did fall, but the Githyanki discovered this bit of info and decided to send a force there to spite the hero's.

 

[LostSoul]

Now to challenge your idea that Paladins are never in a moral delima two harsh moral choices for your palidins to face.

Delima 1)

Delima 2)

The answer to both of these dillema is the same. The Paladin does the Lawful Good thing. If he doesn't, his character gets nerfed.

So let's say for dillema 1 his choices come down to dying for the innocents or saving himself, losing his powers, and then playing a loser character. That's a lose-lose situation. At least if he dies the living party members can resurrect him, or he can just make up a new PC that is effective.

So the player answers by asking the DM "What's the Lawful Good thing to do in this situation?" and then he does it. If the DM doesn't tell him, then they are going to have big problems: "You lose your powers for that!" "Why? That was a Lawful Good action!" "No it wasn't!" "Was too!" etc.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Probably not such a hot idea to bring a paladin derailment into this thread...even if it was briefly mentioned by the original poster.