A Moral Dilemma

[Angel Tarragon]

Either go somewhere else or a hire a handful of commoners to buy to buy you the stuff you need.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I didn't vote, and haven't read the thread yet, in order not to taint my initial response.

I would (even my current pally character)--assuming attempted diplomacy failed--take the supplies I needed, and leave fair value in coin as payment, perhaps a bit more for the man's trouble. It's the best of what are all bad options, in my opinion.

Certainly under better circumstances, the man would have the right not to sell, for whatever reason. But this isn't better circumstances, and my PC isn't going to die to protect the old man's right to stiff him out of mistrust.

My pally, preferring the Order of personal property rights and the Good of respecting others' wishes, would find the act distasteful, but not [Evil] and also necessary.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What if the DM is indeed metagaming - that is, he has set up this situation in order for you to make a moral decision? To this DM, the whole point of the game is to give the players moral decisions to make. He's presenting the players with a moral choice, and sitting back and watching what they do. Is that "screwing" the players? If so, how? (I don't see it that way, or how it could be seen that way, so I'm interested to hear why you think it is screwing the players.)

(Having now read the thread)

A moral choice dictated by the situation is one thing. Such choices can be a part of an intriguing game. A moral choice artificially constructed (and bound with baseless restrictions) by the DM is another thing entirely. I don't play D&D to participate in an amateur ethics class taught by my DM. So if the DM is going to fabricate absolute scenarios to see what I would pick, he can take his "campaign" and stuff it.

I like ethics, and ethics classes. I've taken them in college. But I don't want them in my gaming, save those ethical decisions which stem naturally from making decisions in a fantasy world.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Certainly under better circumstances, the man would have the right not to sell, for whatever reason. But this isn't better circumstances, and my PC isn't going to die to protect the old man's right to stiff him out of mistrust.

Since one of the actual pool choices is "leave and seek supplies elsewhere" as opposed to "Die", I'm skeptical of this reasoning.

 

[fusangite]

The basic problem here is we have way too little information to respond to the poll. I chose option (b) for the heck of it. But I think option (d) may be over-reported in this poll just because it sounds so funny. (I actually laughed when I read the poll question.)

In the campaign in which I currently play, our characters are royal missi from a rapidly expanding kingdom. So, my solution, were it available would be
(e) find a prominent person in the town who is willing to rule it as a vassal of our king, depose the elder and install our puppet ruler

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think you're right - the DM has to take your actions into account. I also think the rules don't work very well here. If they don't want to give/sell you their supplies because doing so will mean their deaths, what kind of skill check do you need to make them hand their supplies over? Would a "Helpful" NPC do that sort of thing? And if he won't, doesn't that take away from having a high Diplomacy check, since sometimes you just can't change an NPC's mind? But if he will help you, even though it means his own death, is that giving Diplomacy too much power?

It may not even matter, though:

DM: "The NPC says, 'I don't want to sell you any supplies.'"
PC: "Well, I make a Diplomacy check to convince him that he does. I got a 37."
DM: "Okay. He looks torn, not sure what to do now. He says 'I guess I'll help you lads out. I hope that the great Dragon King doesn't take offense, because if he does it will mean my life...'"
PC: <with knowledge of the implications of his choices, insert moral choice here>

I agree that just rolling a high Diplomacy check and making the results equal an all out pass or fail would give the skill too much power.

Your example is probably close to how I would play it out as a DM. The Diplomacy check would not necessarily mean the elder would just hand over the needed items, but it might make him begin to trust the party enough that he is willing to start a dialogue about the reasons the party needs the items versus the reasons the elder is reluctant to give them up.

If the Diplomacy check was fantastic, the elder would be leaning towards finding a way to help the party as much as possible without causing severe problems for himself and the villagers. If the check was just enough, the elder would instead be leaning towards making sure the party gave assurances they would help the village with any trouble that came of helping the party.

 

[LostSoul]

A moral choice dictated by the situation is one thing. Such choices can be a part of an intriguing game. A moral choice artificially constructed (and bound with baseless restrictions) by the DM is another thing entirely. I don't play D&D to participate in an amateur ethics class taught by my DM. So if the DM is going to fabricate absolute scenarios to see what I would pick, he can take his "campaign" and stuff it.

I like ethics, and ethics classes. I've taken them in college. But I don't want them in my gaming, save those ethical decisions which stem naturally from making decisions in a fantasy world.

That makes sense to me. It has to seem real, not forced, just like everything else in the game.

Although - if the goal of one DM's game is to "have the players face moral and ethical dillemas", and another DM's goal is to have the players "kill things and take their stuff", is a fabricated dungeon-crawl (aren't they all?) just as bad as a fabricated moral dillema? Is what really matters how much the players are able to suspend their disbelief and say, "Yeah, given the conceits we agreed to at the beginning of the game, we can accept that"?

I guess I see it like this: the DM is offering an encounter, and the players can react however they want. Is it worse because the encounter has a moral/ethical spin, instead of a resource management one? (ie. Which would you rather do - 1. Decide whether or not to take what you need and screw the locals, or let them live on in peace and go without what you need? or 2. Decide whether or not you should head into room 21, where the vampire is, because if you don't attack him now he'll recover at nightfall, but your spells and hp are low and you might not be able to get through his vampire-spawn guardians?) Both are fabricated by the DM, and both allow the players freedom of choice; the difference is in the nature of the question itself.

 

[Aaron L]

depends entirely on what character I'm playing.

Yes.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I guess I see it like this: the DM is offering an encounter, and the players can react however they want. Is it worse because the encounter has a moral/ethical spin, instead of a resource management one? (ie. Which would you rather do - 1. Decide whether or not to take what you need and screw the locals, or let them live on in peace and go without what you need? or 2. Decide whether or not you should head into room 21, where the vampire is, because if you don't attack him now he'll recover at nightfall, but your spells and hp are low and you might not be able to get through his vampire-spawn guardians?) Both are fabricated by the DM, and both allow the players freedom of choice; the difference is in the nature of the question itself.

I was responding to those who suggested that perhaps there weren't any other choices. i.e. the PCs can only either a) go without, b) take the goods by force, c) take the goods by force and kill everyone, etc. That PC choices outside of the presented puzzle would be rejected out of hand to preserve the "moral dilemma." Such a scenario ceases to be gaming to me, and instead becomes a constructed ethical problem, such as those presented in a college course on the subject.

Teacher: You're standing on a pier and a stranger is swimming nearby, when suddenly you see a shark attack him. You can either let him be mauled by the shark and die, or jump in and assist him in which case you will both be disfigured, but both of you will survive. What do you do?

Student: I call for help.

Teacher: Nobody is around.

Student: I throw him a rope to quickly pull him in.

Teacher: There's no rope.

Student: I try and find a weapon to use against the shark.

Teacher: The pier is completely barren. All you can do is either leave the man to die, or be disfigured yourself to save him.

Student: How do I know I'll save him if I jump in? This is a freaking shark we're talking about, isn't it?

Teacher: You've seen a lot of shark shows on the Discovery channel. You know that the two of you could overpower this shark, though you'd both be mauled.

Student: But what if this guy panics? How do I know he'll keep his head enough to help me with the shark? What if he runs away the minute I jump in, leaving my sorry butt to the shark?

Teacher: You're psychic. You have a premonition that he'll help you. Look, the point of this exercise is to examine the moral implications of the choice presented, not to pick apart the question, okay? Now do you leave the guy alone or jump off the frikkin' pier?!

Note that this isn't a real ethical question. I've long since forgotten them. But I think it amply demonstrates the point I'm trying to make. I don't mind it if the DM puts me on the pier with the stranger and the shark. But at that point he needs to let my PC react as I think he would. Artificially restricting all choices to but a few to force an unrealistic ethical choice changes it from a role-playing game into a ethical study, and though I like such things, I don't want them in my gaming. The point of the exercise is not to examine the moral implications of a choice presented. It's to role-play in a fantasy setting. At least, it is for me. Others' MMV.