Kheti sa-Menik
First Post
IcyCool said:
"Kirk your way out." That rocks.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
As a player, do you enjoy moral dilemmas and no-win situations?
- Thread starter Glyfair
- Start date
"Kirk your way out." That rocks.
Trickstergod
First Post
Depends on the no-win situation; will this cost the paladin his paladin-hood, regardless of what decision he makes?
No, I wouldn't like that.
Will the only right decision my paladin can make cost him his life?
Yes, I would like that. Martyrdom, or even failure through cowardice, both appeal to me. I enjoy Midnight. I enjoy Ravenloft. I enjoy A Song of Ice and Fire. I enjoy the Watchmen. The harder the reward was to earn, the more I savor it.
Same thing with moral dillema's. Who cares if you're good when it's easy? It only matters when it gets put to the test. If you don't want your morality put to the test, just jot down Neutral and get over yourself (this is one of my biggest complaints about those who want to eliminate alignment; many seem to want to jot down 'Good,' then throw a hissy fit because it gets put to the test.)
Come to think of it, I believe my caveat on no-win situations and moral dillema's is this: They're good so long as you still have an opportunity to be a hero. Even if it's only to die as a hero.
No, I wouldn't like that.
Will the only right decision my paladin can make cost him his life?
Yes, I would like that. Martyrdom, or even failure through cowardice, both appeal to me. I enjoy Midnight. I enjoy Ravenloft. I enjoy A Song of Ice and Fire. I enjoy the Watchmen. The harder the reward was to earn, the more I savor it.
Same thing with moral dillema's. Who cares if you're good when it's easy? It only matters when it gets put to the test. If you don't want your morality put to the test, just jot down Neutral and get over yourself (this is one of my biggest complaints about those who want to eliminate alignment; many seem to want to jot down 'Good,' then throw a hissy fit because it gets put to the test.)
Come to think of it, I believe my caveat on no-win situations and moral dillema's is this: They're good so long as you still have an opportunity to be a hero. Even if it's only to die as a hero.
No Win Situation
I love moral dilemmas, as that's a part of the whole character development. We all make choices, and the consequences of those choices follow us through life. Some of these choices are excruciatingly difficult, and those should be rare, if only to make them stand out from the lesser ones.
As for the no win situation, I don't believe in it. Sure, maybe in real life, but not in a game. There always has to be a way out, a way to achieve victory, though that victory might have a cost. For a hero, that cost may be his life, but that's a price worth paying if it means saving innocent lives.
The paladin faced with the choice of saving the town (immediate danger) or stopping the evil wizard (longterm danger) is given a moral dilemma. It may be that he won't find a way to accomplish both tasks simultaneously; it sounds like the GM decided to set up the two as mutually exclusive. Either way, innocent lives will be lost. If he stops the evil wizard, the people of the village will die. If he saves the village, the evil wizard escapes to wreak more harm and destruction in the world, imperiling even more lives than those in the village.
Now, a paladin may find it hard to forgive himself for being unable to do both. He may hold himself to an impossibly high standard that even he cannot meet. He may feel it necessary to atone for his self-perceived failure, engaging in metaphysical self-flagellation (or the physical kind). It depends on the character. It may even be that the church might hold him accountable for it, deeming him lacking for failing to both save the village and stop the villainous wizard.
But D&D is a game where the gods are real, and have a tangible impact on the game. A paladin loses his status and powers when the deity that he champions deems it so. Indeed, evil has been wreaked, whether upon the village immediately, or upon the untold victims of the wizard later on. Has the paladin done wrong to choose one over the other? Morally and ethically, I say no. It was made evident that he could not accomplish both tasks. That left him with three choices: stop the wizard, save the village, or agonize indecisively and do neither. So long as he accomplished one task or the other, he has done GOOD. The evil that remained was not of his making.
Should the Power that the paladin serves determine that one task was more right than the other, the paladin may be admonished for judgment, and may be given further lessons in weighing the decisions that he makes. But to strip him of his paladin status is definitely wrong, since from the description of the scenario, ANY decision would result in this outcome.
Sometimes the moral lessons are colored by the one giving the lesson. A follower of St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel might be told that stopping the evildoer is more important than stopping the evil that he does. A follower of Pelor might be told the opposite.
Basically, I believe in moral choices, but I don't put in no win situations. Even when it looks like there's no way to win, I always leave an out. The PCs may not find it, and they may not win, but they've always got a fighting chance. And that's the way it ought to be.
Kradlo
I love moral dilemmas, as that's a part of the whole character development. We all make choices, and the consequences of those choices follow us through life. Some of these choices are excruciatingly difficult, and those should be rare, if only to make them stand out from the lesser ones.
As for the no win situation, I don't believe in it. Sure, maybe in real life, but not in a game. There always has to be a way out, a way to achieve victory, though that victory might have a cost. For a hero, that cost may be his life, but that's a price worth paying if it means saving innocent lives.
The paladin faced with the choice of saving the town (immediate danger) or stopping the evil wizard (longterm danger) is given a moral dilemma. It may be that he won't find a way to accomplish both tasks simultaneously; it sounds like the GM decided to set up the two as mutually exclusive. Either way, innocent lives will be lost. If he stops the evil wizard, the people of the village will die. If he saves the village, the evil wizard escapes to wreak more harm and destruction in the world, imperiling even more lives than those in the village.
Now, a paladin may find it hard to forgive himself for being unable to do both. He may hold himself to an impossibly high standard that even he cannot meet. He may feel it necessary to atone for his self-perceived failure, engaging in metaphysical self-flagellation (or the physical kind). It depends on the character. It may even be that the church might hold him accountable for it, deeming him lacking for failing to both save the village and stop the villainous wizard.
But D&D is a game where the gods are real, and have a tangible impact on the game. A paladin loses his status and powers when the deity that he champions deems it so. Indeed, evil has been wreaked, whether upon the village immediately, or upon the untold victims of the wizard later on. Has the paladin done wrong to choose one over the other? Morally and ethically, I say no. It was made evident that he could not accomplish both tasks. That left him with three choices: stop the wizard, save the village, or agonize indecisively and do neither. So long as he accomplished one task or the other, he has done GOOD. The evil that remained was not of his making.
Should the Power that the paladin serves determine that one task was more right than the other, the paladin may be admonished for judgment, and may be given further lessons in weighing the decisions that he makes. But to strip him of his paladin status is definitely wrong, since from the description of the scenario, ANY decision would result in this outcome.
Sometimes the moral lessons are colored by the one giving the lesson. A follower of St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel might be told that stopping the evildoer is more important than stopping the evil that he does. A follower of Pelor might be told the opposite.
Basically, I believe in moral choices, but I don't put in no win situations. Even when it looks like there's no way to win, I always leave an out. The PCs may not find it, and they may not win, but they've always got a fighting chance. And that's the way it ought to be.
Kradlo
Kurotowa
Legend
I made my feelings pretty clear on the no-win thing on that last paladin thread. So let me focus on the other part of the question. Just so we're clear, I'm going to be arguing from roughly the wikipedia definition. "An ethical dilemma is a situation that often involves an apparent conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another."
A moral dilemma is forcing someone to pick between two (or more) bad choices. Both are against the person's moral code and the trick is to find a third way out or rationalize being able to live with one. The Watchman example is a good one. The problem is it's still an ultimately negative situation. It only works on characters who have a moral code, and not one amoral or pragmatic ones. These people are 'rewarded' for their greater conviction and higher moral standard by being put in situations that try to tear apart their moral code and force them to violate it. Paladins just get singled out the most because as a class they are both required to have such a code and mechanically punished for violating it.
This is really no less adversarial than a DM sending the most powerful critter he can brew against the player proud of his badass combat PC, only in the social arena. True, some players enjoy the angstfest of a moral character forced to face the inherent immorality of a dark world. I enjoy that on occation, but that's what I go to the World of Darkness for, not D&D. If I make a moral D&D PC, paladin or otherwise, I'm usually looking to be a brave hero who brings justice to a dark world and brightens it by rising above the immorality and brute pragmatism. As always, YMMV, and it helps to know the tastes of your players. But I don't see a moral dilemma as an inherently fun thing.
I should note that I do have more respect for the first cousin of the moral dilemma, the defining choice. That's where a character is forced to make a choice between two things in a way that defines them. Like the character out for vengence on the man who killed his family, forced to chose between taking that revenge and saving a family of innocent bystanders from a flaming building. I see that sort of dilemma as a lot more constructive than a moral one, both better for character divelopement and generating new plot hooks.
A moral dilemma is forcing someone to pick between two (or more) bad choices. Both are against the person's moral code and the trick is to find a third way out or rationalize being able to live with one. The Watchman example is a good one. The problem is it's still an ultimately negative situation. It only works on characters who have a moral code, and not one amoral or pragmatic ones. These people are 'rewarded' for their greater conviction and higher moral standard by being put in situations that try to tear apart their moral code and force them to violate it. Paladins just get singled out the most because as a class they are both required to have such a code and mechanically punished for violating it.
This is really no less adversarial than a DM sending the most powerful critter he can brew against the player proud of his badass combat PC, only in the social arena. True, some players enjoy the angstfest of a moral character forced to face the inherent immorality of a dark world. I enjoy that on occation, but that's what I go to the World of Darkness for, not D&D. If I make a moral D&D PC, paladin or otherwise, I'm usually looking to be a brave hero who brings justice to a dark world and brightens it by rising above the immorality and brute pragmatism. As always, YMMV, and it helps to know the tastes of your players. But I don't see a moral dilemma as an inherently fun thing.
I should note that I do have more respect for the first cousin of the moral dilemma, the defining choice. That's where a character is forced to make a choice between two things in a way that defines them. Like the character out for vengence on the man who killed his family, forced to chose between taking that revenge and saving a family of innocent bystanders from a flaming building. I see that sort of dilemma as a lot more constructive than a moral one, both better for character divelopement and generating new plot hooks.
Glyfair
Explorer
Lord Pendragon said:
Oddly enough, a search of the internet shows up a very similiar situation as the example of a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma is "a conflict between two moral norm." One moral norm in this case is stopping and punishing evil. The other moral norm is saving villages from being ravaged. Not being able to do both is a dilemma.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
I don't care for moral dilemmas in D&D. First, to want to include one in the game the DM MUST assume that the player will not know what is morally correct for his character or there ISN'T a dilemma, is there? Secondly, it's all but a given that the DM has his own idea of what is morally correct or incorrect going into the game and IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME is not the time to find out that his players have differing opinions - but it ALWAYS works out that way. I have never, EVER seen a moral dilemma included in a game except to attempt to WHACK an unsuspecting player with penalties and punishments for not exercising what the DM assumes is the correct choice. If the DM intentionally disincludes a correct choice then the DM is engineering his game for the specific purpose of punishing a player/character without that player/character having even a HINT of recourse. You might as well just strike randomly at PC's with blue bolts from the heavens for all the ingenuity and subtlety that requires.
A D&D game is going to be LESS interesting if there is no moral ELEMENT to the plots, adventures, etc. But engineering moral DILEMMA into the game is just not a very viable way to be including moral elements in the game.
Given the above it should be no surprise that IMO a no-win scenario is an abomination and any DM who wants to inflict one upon his game should be tossed out unless it's well established that the players are all masochistic angst puppies. It's one thing for a player to willingly undertake the roleplaying challenge of a descent into darkness or merely want to portray a bit of a tortured soul. It's quite another thing for a DM to SEEK to FORCE players down those roads. It's one thing to be defeated - it's quite another for the mere attempt at SEEKING a victory to be a glorious and pointless exercise.
I don't know about you, but I don't play D&D to let the DM get his jollies deciding that my characters fate will be a greek tragedy without my input having any bearing and before I even roll the dice.
A D&D game is going to be LESS interesting if there is no moral ELEMENT to the plots, adventures, etc. But engineering moral DILEMMA into the game is just not a very viable way to be including moral elements in the game.
Given the above it should be no surprise that IMO a no-win scenario is an abomination and any DM who wants to inflict one upon his game should be tossed out unless it's well established that the players are all masochistic angst puppies. It's one thing for a player to willingly undertake the roleplaying challenge of a descent into darkness or merely want to portray a bit of a tortured soul. It's quite another thing for a DM to SEEK to FORCE players down those roads. It's one thing to be defeated - it's quite another for the mere attempt at SEEKING a victory to be a glorious and pointless exercise.
I don't know about you, but I don't play D&D to let the DM get his jollies deciding that my characters fate will be a greek tragedy without my input having any bearing and before I even roll the dice.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I've never seen anything wrong with a no-win situation. Last campaign I played in, they were commonplace! Of course, I count anything that is certain to end in failure a no-win situation. Things like running into monsters that I have no choice but to flee from, having a political enemy who I cannot touch or sway anyone against, and trying to convince someone who just won't listen of something important. Sometimes the PC just can't accomplish what he wants to. As a PC and a DM I accept these as givens for any campaign, and I can't imagine a campaign that didn't have them.
Perhaps people are looking at bigger ones and ones that involve high consequenses? Morale is an important factor in a game. If the Players are demorolized by a serious defeat, and one that they couldn't have avoided, then that can be bad. There's also something to be said for levels of defeat. Perhaps they can't beat the evil wizard, but maybe they can save a few slaves or delay his plans a bit before escaping from his clutches instead of dying. These are losses, but with accomplishments, so even if the PCs lose, then it won't be a total loss.
Moral delimmas are fun, too, and since I like playing flawed good characters, I have a lot of fun with these. Which will he choose to save, the girl or the school-children? Or will he just rush the villian in rage? I learn a lot about my characters through these decisions.
Perhaps people are looking at bigger ones and ones that involve high consequenses? Morale is an important factor in a game. If the Players are demorolized by a serious defeat, and one that they couldn't have avoided, then that can be bad. There's also something to be said for levels of defeat. Perhaps they can't beat the evil wizard, but maybe they can save a few slaves or delay his plans a bit before escaping from his clutches instead of dying. These are losses, but with accomplishments, so even if the PCs lose, then it won't be a total loss.
Moral delimmas are fun, too, and since I like playing flawed good characters, I have a lot of fun with these. Which will he choose to save, the girl or the school-children? Or will he just rush the villian in rage? I learn a lot about my characters through these decisions.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Man in the Funny Hat said:
There doesn't have to be a right or wrong answer to something. It can just be.
Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
Sure. I love them.
Just like I love Watchmen.
And play Midnight.
It might seem a no-brainer, but being put into situations where they have the choice of saving themselves against saving a village... it adds some depth to the characters. Even the most hardcore PC has horrified at the evil that would force them to make the decision; and empathic (Empathetic?) with the villagers who tried to betray them.
Now, I like a raid-dungeon kill-pc game as much as any of them. My fallback game is Age of Worms, which is cool in and of itself. But when I DM, I really like people to interact and feel the potential of a setting like Midnight. If it was a raid-orcish-stronghold, super-heroic game, I wouldn't have done the setting justice.
So I love both moral quandaries and even the occasional no-win scenario (That doesn't kill PC's.) After all, sometimes PC's have just been out-manouvered.
They shouldn't be able to kirk their way out of every scenario
.
Just like I love Watchmen.
And play Midnight.
It might seem a no-brainer, but being put into situations where they have the choice of saving themselves against saving a village... it adds some depth to the characters. Even the most hardcore PC has horrified at the evil that would force them to make the decision; and empathic (Empathetic?) with the villagers who tried to betray them.
Now, I like a raid-dungeon kill-pc game as much as any of them. My fallback game is Age of Worms, which is cool in and of itself. But when I DM, I really like people to interact and feel the potential of a setting like Midnight. If it was a raid-orcish-stronghold, super-heroic game, I wouldn't have done the setting justice.
So I love both moral quandaries and even the occasional no-win scenario (That doesn't kill PC's.) After all, sometimes PC's have just been out-manouvered.
They shouldn't be able to kirk their way out of every scenario
.Similar Threads
- Poll
