D&D 5E About Morally Correct Outcomes in D&D Adventures [+]

[Paul Farquhar]

Friendly reminder that this is a +++++ thread, which is experimental and means a lot of things, including positive contributions to the "What if"? hypothetical premise in the OP.

The hypothetical premise includes the possible question of what moral framework the author of the adventure might be leveraging

As I have stated, the idea that the author is pushing a moral agenda is morally objectionable and highly inapropiate for D&D.

, not putting the onus on the players for this specific thread.

I cannot say for sure, but I am feeling a little worried that your posts are inching away from the OP premise.

I find your premise morally objectionable. As I have said, if you do not like what I have to say, feel free to block me.

I just wanted to check in with you and see if you're OK with aligning your posts to the thread rules of engagement?

Not if they conflict with my moral values. But there is no thread "ownership" on this forum. I have attempted to interpret your topic in a polite and generous fashion, but if you don't like my opinions, you are not in a position to silence me.

 

[Emoshin]

I find your premise morally objectionable. As I have said, if you do not like what I have to say, feel free to block me.

Not if they conflict with my moral values. But there is no thread "ownership" on this forum.

Ah, I see. The OP requests this

Again, nobody is forcing you to agree with anything, just saying if you don't have a positive contribution to make here, please take it another thread.

If the poster refuses to accept the [+] thread, let me check in with Enworld on what the forum rules say.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't actually consider the destruction of the Death Star a morally ambiguous ending. Anyone who died on board the station was an active combatant engaged in a (civil) war, who had participated in outright war crimes (the destruction of Alderaan, an explicitly civilian target.) Preventing the commission of even more war crimes by destroying the Death Star is not some sort of horrible mass murder. It is a terrible loss of life, and the deaths of the crew absolutely should be mourned (because all deaths are tragedies!), but it is not something to beat oneself up over.

I wasn't referring to the people on the Death Star. Killing them is morally correct.

It's the Ewoks that will be wiped out in the ensuing ecological disaster caused by a moon-sized hunk of metal exploding while above their planetoid.

It's the inhabitants of Endor itself who will be wiped out by the destruction and the ecological fallout of the reactor core explosion. The material of the death star and the radiation don't vanish instantly.

Basically the Rebel Alliance saved themselves by damning an entire planet and it's moons to utter devastation for generations to come. Victory!

Depending on a person's specific moral identity, and philosophical ideals, the Rebel Victory could be a war crime.

*You can see a reversed version of this (killing someone innocent, albeit unpleasant, in order to ensure that their people ally with the "player character" allies) in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "In the Pale Moonlight." TL;DR: The station commander recruited an ex-spy to get the Romulans to help in the war against the Dominion. It works...but only because a Romulan senator and his two bodyguards, all innocents, were murdered by the ex-spy. It is a genuine victory for "the good guys" (Sisko himself says that much) that the Romulans are now helping, but it was won through blatantly immoral means--and Sisko finds that he can live with his guilty conscience, somewhat to his surprise.

LOVE that episode!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's the Ewoks that will be wiped out in the ensuing ecological disaster caused by a moon-sized hunk of metal exploding while above their planetoid.

It's the inhabitants of Endor itself who will be wiped out by the destruction and the ecological fallout of the reactor core explosion. The material of the death star and the radiation don't vanish instantly.

Star Wars canon says that didn't happen - the rebels intervened to prevent it.

 

[Steampunkette]

Star Wars canon says that didn't happen - the rebels intervened to prevent it.

They screened Bright Tree Village, where the celebration with the Ewoks happened, according to Canon.

But screening one village on one moon does not a planet protect. Nor a moon. And the wreckage that landed on the moon itself included AN ENTIRE STAR DESTROYER. Whole ship. Bam. Into the moon.

The Rebels protected one village that had helped them, and left everyone else to die.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It's the Ewoks that will be wiped out in the ensuing ecological disaster caused by a moon-sized hunk of metal exploding while above their planetoid.

I always thought that the explosion pulverized the station sufficiently that Endor developed a silver ring.

Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts.

 

[Umbran]

I find your premise morally objectionable.

Mod Note:
While the OP may not have been as clear in its setup as it could have been, this is a (+) thread, and if you aren't on board with its general topic of discussion, you should take that objection to some other thread.

 

[Steampunkette]

I always thought that the explosion pulverized the station sufficiently that Endor developed a silver ring.

Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts.

Novels. Wound up getting retconned with most of the Expanded Universe. In the canon-canon debris hits the moon and planet. Big chunks, too.

Mostly it's because the writers didn't consider the impact of the sheer mass involved, gravity, and radiation. They tried to "Fix It" in a later novel. And then Disney retconned the novel, unfixing it again.

Because, as noted, writers have different moral identities, even when they -do- consider the full ramifications of what they're writing.

And sometimes they don't consider.

 

[Irlo]

Novels. Wound up getting retconned with most of the Expanded Universe. In the canon-canon debris hits the moon and planet. Big chunks, too.

Mostly it's because the writers didn't consider the impact of the sheer mass involved, gravity, and radiation. They tried to "Fix It" in a later novel. And then Disney retconned the novel, unfixing it again.

Because, as noted, writers have different moral identities, even when they -do- consider the full ramifications of what they're writing.

And sometimes they don't.

Realistic consequences based a real-world science are in short supply in the Star Wars films.

 

[Steampunkette]

Realistic consequences based a real-world science are in short supply in the Star Wars films.

S'true.

But the same can be said about D&D. And any other form of fantasy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They screened Bright Tree Village, where the celebration with the Ewoks happened, according to Canon.

But screening one village on one moon does not a planet protect. Nor a moon. And the wreckage that landed on the moon itself included AN ENTIRE STAR DESTROYER. Whole ship. Bam. Into the moon.

The Rebels protected one village that had helped them, and left everyone else to die.

The fact that at least one village is shown with no looming dust cloud blocking out the sun and choking out all life already handily disproves the 'dark imagining because we hate ewoks for being made for kids' version of the scenario that's typically set forth.

If we're talking about moral consequences in game, it should be about actual canon consequences and not fan theories. If the players infer things that aren't there, that's on them, not the designer.

 

[Emoshin]

FYI, I've updated the OP for clarity on the + thread section

 

[Blue]

It's not moral to try and impose your moral viewpoint on someone else. Ergo any "morally correct ending" is inherently immoral. (Note, Prisoner 13 does not specify a "morally correct" ending).

That's not a universal morality. For example I have met folks whom feel it is a moral failing if they don't try to save your "immortal soul". I don't want to go further as we shade into real world religion, but I'm sure you can find plenty of counterexamples to what you suggested.

 

[Steampunkette]

The fact that at least one village is shown with no looming dust cloud blocking out the sun and choking out all life already handily disproves the 'dark imagining because we hate ewoks for being made for kids' version of the scenario that's typically set forth.

If we're talking about moral consequences in game, it should be about actual canon consequences and not fan theories. If the players infer things that aren't there, that's on them, not the designer.

And there it is.

Actual canon consequences are "You win! The Evil is Defeated! The Goal is Achieved!"

Most of what happens beyond that is gonna be inferences.

 

[Blue]

To borrow a term from video games, people want a "golden" ending: an ending that resolves all the plot problems neatly, gives a satisfactory conclusion, provides definitive answers to the moral dilemmas, and achieves something like "happily ever after." That said, "golden ending" usually implies at or near true perfection, with nothing bad left. In morally-nuanced works, even the option closest to a true "golden ending" may have bittersweet elements or true loss/hardship, but those things should feel like worthy sacrifices on the journey to success, rather than wasted potential or pointless destruction. A noble self-sacrifice at the conclusion of a character's long arc of redemption and transformation can be part of a "golden ending" if that sacrifice feels narratively earned and karmically satisfying.

I want to give an aside - this is a perfect example of home brew vs. published modules differ. I home brew all of my setting and adventures. It's one big continuous thing. I never look to a "golden ending" -- I want threads that lead out to other adventures, hooks that lead further. Wrapping up all of the threads Is something I avoid. Connected modules and adventure paths also do not try to tie up everything. At least, like my homebrew, until the end of the last act.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And there it is.

Actual canon consequences are "You win! The Evil is Defeated! The Goal is Achieved!"

Most of what happens beyond that is gonna be inferences.

"Perfect! And that's the way it shall be!" ~ The Third Star Franchise.

 

[fettpett]

What's "morally correct"? The definition of what is moral can and does change regularly particularly as culture changes. Frankly I'll end a campaign (if I ever actually get that far) on the note that feels best for the group and the story. Like I'm currently running a homebrew Ravenloft campaign, I don't see the "morally just heroic ending" for it because...horror. However the same goes for any other campaign, if the end justifies a "morally correct" one then that's what'll get...if not...well that's the way it happens.

 

[Irlo]

S'true.

But the same can be said about D&D. And any other form of fantasy.

What I should have said is:

I find little value (except entertainment) by making moral judgments of fictional actions based on consequences that are realistic but that do not conform to the genre.

 

[jgsugden]

This is a slippery challenge to master because morality is inherently subjective, and the 'mass market morality' changes - and sometimes quickly.

Some of us gamers are old enough to remember when it would have been immoral to allow a woman to be put in jeopardy. A few of us remember there being large majorities telling you not to mix races because it was inherently wrong. Most of us have heard large crowds screaming that LGBTQ people are sick and immoral and need our help to change in our lifetimes. The people expousing those beliefs thought they were being morally right and protecting people. Now? Those ideas would never be put on a page and sold. Then? Heck yes - we saw lots of things selling those beliefs.

And let's consider what would happen if we traveled a bit in the modern day and applied the different moral codes you might find across the globe. If publishers were required to put a 'moral option' into the game, who judges whether they met that standard? Using what rules?

I think it is an impossible task to require a moral option ... but beyond that, it is an idea that betrays many of the reasons one might propose it.

Why ask the Trolley Problem question? Is it to determine the correct answer, or to explore the potential answers? Morality isn't often about what is moral, it is about asking what is moral - and that requires people to face decisions.

In my game this last week, the PCs returned to town after 32 days and discovered that things had changed in their absence. The last member of the royal family had previously fled, and her loyal followers had been driven out of power by the Merchant's Guild. One of the first acts the guild did was to rescind the grant from the royals that gave the PCs land. When they returned home, they found it had been granted to someone else - someone on the Merchant's Guild. They scoffed and started to tear the new signs off the property to restore theirs, but the local constable and the member of the Merchant's Guild showed up and spoke to them. They explained that everything that had taken place was legal, that the PCs had been properly served notice and given a chance to respond (which they did not because they were not present or aware), and that the property was being put to more productive use in a time when people needed every property to be more productive in order to survive. They fully admitted that this was going to profit the Merchant's Guild, but that was only going to be in the long run ... and that if the property was going to continue to be used as the PCs were using it (which was basically neglected), the entire area might not survive the upcoming winter.

The players sat there, looked at each other, and didn't know what to do. They had to make decisions. The petulant child PC stormed off. The greedy PC asked for compensation. The wise PC acknowledged the logic and said they could not disagree with it, but that they should be made whole in the long run. The bard found the whole discussion fascinating.

If I were to mde the Merchant's Guild melodramatic villians that twirled their moustache, there would be a clear morale path to me. hate the bad guys and force them to give the land back. However, by giving this shades of grey and no clearly righteous path, it gives them something with which to wrestle that isn't just a monster. It gives them story that is not just hack and slash. It gives them depth.

Being able to find a clearly moral answer to every major problem is problematic, and to me - it doesn't serve morality at all as it attempts to reduce the most important part of morality - the pondering of it - to a forgone conclusion.

 

[Emoshin]

Holy sh*t

This is what the AI said:

As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide some insights on the hypothetical question. If every WoTC 5E adventure as-written examined and explored 2 or more suggested endings, including at least one heroically "good" ending where the PCs can achieve a morally correct outcome, it would give players more agency and choice in shaping the narrative and outcome of the adventure. It may also help players feel more invested and engaged in the story and give them a sense of accomplishment for achieving a morally correct outcome.

If I were a writer at WoTC tasked with including a heroically "good" ending in every adventure, I would approach it by drawing from established ethical principles, such as utilitarianism, deontological ethics, or virtue ethics. However, it's also important to acknowledge that different players may have different moral codes and expectations, so the "good" ending should be presented in a way that allows players to interpret and apply it in their own way, while still staying true to the overall narrative and worldbuilding. It may also be helpful to consult with players and playtesters to get feedback on how they interpret and apply the moral framework presented in the adventure.