As a player, do you enjoy moral dilemmas and no-win situations?

[Glyfair]

Over the years, I've seen a number of threads dealing with issues where the gamemaster intentionally puts the players in a situation where there are moral dilemmas and no-win situations. This is particularly focused on the paladin class, but it also has applied in a general fashion.

The situations I'm discussing are situations where there are a very limited number of options (often just two main ones) and all of them have serious drawbacks to the character. The classic example is putting a paladin in a situation where any choices allow evil to flourish because of his actions.

A recent example had a paladin placed into a situation where he could allow an evil wizard to go free, because he was the only one stopping a town from being destroyed. Either he allowed an obviously evil person to go free, or he allowed a town to be destroyed (ignore any other side issues with this one about these being the only options, because this is the way the dilemma was presented by the DM in question). The hint was that the paladin should stop being a paladin (at least requiring atonement) no matter which choice he had.

My question is, as a player, do you find that being put in such a situation adds to the game and makes it more enjoyable and fun? Even if it's not fun at the moment, does it add to your overall enjoyment of the game because it makes the world seem more "realistic"?

Aarrgh...this was supposed to be a poll. Stupid computer pushed me through the poll screen as soon as it came up. Ah well, I guess the lurkers won't get their two cents in (and they often swing a poll significantly, I've found). .

 

[Odhanan]

Moral dilemmas yes, very much.

No-win situations, absolutely not.

 

[Crothian]

no win situations are good, but you can't use them too often. Moral choices are always good.

 

[fafhrd]

A hearty yes to both. When my character comes crawling out of the smoking pit, clothes smouldering, missing fingers and glaring his defiance at the world I know he earned it. And when he doesn't return at all, I know he went out giving hell.

 

[LostSoul]

Moral dilemmas, yes.

No-win situations? Maybe. I would have my character die in order to take a stand on an issue I believed in.

edit: Like Luke in The Empire Strikes Back. Either he finishes his training and his friends all die, or he goes to save them and he dies.

 

[punkorange]

I like moral decisions, and a no-win situation could be introduced I would say, once. pretty much ever. Sure it's not something you enjoy at a time, but it does at experience to the character. These experiences are what transform the characters we know and love into more than just numbers on a piece of paper.

 

[swrushing]

moral dil are usually fun if done well and provide the character with examples to further show and maybe even define or discover his character. Specifically these allow the decisions the character makes to be even more important and crucial

no-win situations are the opposite. Whichever way the character goes, bad things happen and this tends to lessen the import of character choice. So they are much rarer a good tool, but not exclusively bad.

The hint was that the paladin should stop being a paladin (at least requiring atonement) no matter which choice he had.
[/I].

this shows a Gm without a good handle on alignment in his game. Good and evil have no relative meaning without one another. if the only choices the paladin has are all EVIl to the extent of costing paladinhood, it shows me a scenario error and campaign definition problem.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Over the years, I've seen a number of threads dealing with issues where the gamemaster intentionally puts the players in a situation where there are moral dilemmas and no-win situations. This is particularly focused on the paladin class, but it also has applied in a general fashion.

The situations I'm discussing are situations where there are a very limited number of options (often just two main ones) and all of them have serious drawbacks to the character. The classic example is putting a paladin in a situation where any choices allow evil to flourish because of his actions.

A recent example had a paladin placed into a situation where he could allow an evil wizard to go free, because he was the only one stopping a town from being destroyed. Either he allowed an obviously evil person to go free, or he allowed a town to be destroyed (ignore any other side issues with this one about these being the only options, because this is the way the dilemma was presented by the DM in question). The hint was that the paladin should stop being a paladin (at least requiring atonement) no matter which choice he had.

My question is, as a player, do you find that being put in such a situation adds to the game and makes it more enjoyable and fun? Even if it's not fun at the moment, does it add to your overall enjoyment of the game because it makes the world seem more "realistic"?

Not only does it not contribute to the enjoyment of the game, but it doesn't slow down the PCs. They are pragmatic, and will choose the situation that gives the most gain to them and causes or persons they care about. (It isn't always due to selfishness.)

 

[Victim]

Yes, sometimes. The occasional tough choice is good for the game. It's when they aren't occasional that I'll start having problems.

 

[billd91]

I'll have to say "it depends". Any tool in a DM's adventure-building arsenal, from no win situations to railroad plots, is OK as long as it's done well and is fun for the players.