A Moral Dilemma

[Mercule]

depends entirely on what character I'm playing.

Ditto. I play characters of many different alignments and outlooks (not always the same thing). Each has a distinct personality and would react differently.

If you're talking true need, then KB is correct -- there aren't a lot of options. If you're asking about need, then anyone who can give a consistant answer across all the characters they've played (or might play) is probably not going to be someone who my answer will make sense to, anyway.

So, no matter how you slice it, the entire question is a non-sequitor.

 

[LostSoul]

If you're talking true need, then KB is correct -- there aren't a lot of options.

Maybe I just don't get it, but isn't that the point? The point is to limit the options to a few moral choices, so that you can't just get away from making a choice by doing nothing. In that case, "doing nothing" (ie. leaving town without getting what you need) is a moral choice as well - you're putting the wishes of others above your own needs.

Now if you play to whatever alignment you've got written on your sheet, the question doesn't matter, since you'll just do whatever your alignment says without making a moral choice.

It seems to me that the way people see the question reveals a lot about the style of game they like to play.

 

[MPA]

2 or 3, depending on alignment.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My party would likely choose "other," if that were an option.

The theft option (with or without repayment) has been mentioned.

Another would be, if we were so cleary capable of taking things by force, threatening to take it be force. "Be reasonable, we will gladly pay you for these items, but should you refuse us, we will have little choice but to take what we must have, and the consequences be upon your head. Think carefully now, Goodsir. Gain some coin by giving us what we need, or spend much coin rebuilding your village after we take it anyway."

Whether or not we would follow through on said threat would depend upon whether we felt the DM was metagaming, just to create a difficult moral dilemma by not giving us a fair chance that the elder could be persuaded/intimidated into selling us the items instead. If it seems the DM is out to screw us, then we would fell obligated to return the favor and do whatever necessary to make him (the DM) regret that decision. The end result would likely be a new DM.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There isn't enough info there to make an informed decision.

 

[LostSoul]

Whether or not we would follow through on said threat would depend upon whether we felt the DM was metagaming, just to create a difficult moral dilemma by not giving us a fair chance that the elder could be persuaded/intimidated into selling us the items instead. If it seems the DM is out to screw us, then we would fell obligated to return the favor and do whatever necessary to make him (the DM) regret that decision. The end result would likely be a new DM.

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.)

(In this situation, the "supplies" are indeed a MacGuffin, since they only exist in order to move the story along - in this case, "the story" being the moral choice the players make.)

To be fair, that kind of style doesn't work with the RAW in this situation. The DM would have to do something with the Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff skills or the "moral dillema" will be solved with a simple roll, and no moral choice will have been made.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.)

(In this situation, the "supplies" are indeed a MacGuffin, since they only exist in order to move the story along - in this case, "the story" being the moral choice the players make.)

We have made our "moral decision." We will intimidate/persuade the village elder to sell us the supplies. Volley back to the DM.

To be fair, that kind of style doesn't work with the RAW in this situation. The DM would have to do something with the Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff skills or the "moral dillema" will be solved with a simple roll, and no moral choice will have been made.

My example showed how the party might initially roleplay the situation. The DM can use dice rolls to determine the outcome but is not required to, depends upon the group. But the DM should take our choice of action into account in a manner beyond, "You cannot intimidate or persuade this person, no matter what you do or say, no matter how skilled your characters may be, you must choose to either leave or take the items by some amount of force."

Now, here is where it gets a little tricky: we, the players, might use our real world Sense Motive skills to determine that the DM has predetermined only four choices (as presented in the original poll) that the characters may choose from. If that happens, the DM is being a jerk, not allowing us to use our own choices to affect the game (All aboard! Choo! Choo!). At that point, the DM may find a need to make a real world persuasion to keep us from doing something that could easily derail his train.

 

[LostSoul]

We have made our "moral decision." We will intimidate/persuade the village elder to sell us the supplies. Volley back to the DM.

Yeah, that will work, I just didn't see it before. Then the DM can determine what will happen to the village based on your choices (it might be destroyed, or when the PCs come back into town they see the NPC they dealt with strung up on a cross).

My example showed how the party might initially roleplay the situation. The DM can use dice rolls to determine the outcome but is not required to, depends upon the group. But the DM should take our choice of action into account in a manner beyond, "You cannot intimidate or persuade this person, no matter what you do or say, no matter how skilled your characters may be, you must choose to either leave or take the items by some amount of force."

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>

 

[painandgreed]

Completly depends on which character and in which game I'm playing. There have been cases where any of the above cases would ahve been chosen over the others. In the current game, we'd either just take what we wanted or burn the place down depending on mood. We're a monster/evil party and our incubus would have just charmed monster everybody to get what we wanted or would have used them all to level drain if he needed the hit points or just felt like it. Perhaps fed a few of them into the life force fueled ship that is currently taking us through the kingdom of Iuz. Ditto with the other players in that they would just take what they wanted and added extra punishment if they felt like it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If this is the 5th village to do so, and none of them will explain why, and the DM is telling us that our survival skill has mysteriously failed, then I burn that village and the 4 preceding it with a minimum of tactical planning or forethought. I couldn't care less if our characters die.

D&D isn't an ethics questionaire. There are never just X options. That's the point of a roleplaying game.