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

[IcyCool]

So, moral dilemmas are fine. As are apparent no-win situations. A genuine no-win situation, especially one in which a Paladin will lose his status shows a GM who should avoid philosophy in his game.

Honestly, I don't think there is a difference between 'apparent' and 'genuine' no-win situations. There's always a route that your GM didn't think of. So, find it and take it (i.e. Kirk your way out).

 

[Endur]

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.

I tend to go with Captain Kirk's solution to the Kobayashi Maru scenario in The Wrath of Khan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

That is, when faced with two evil choices, a Paladin MUST ignore the two evil alternatives and find a third alternative.

Even if the third alternative is somewhat painful for the Paladin ... see e.g. Rorschach's fate in The Watchmen.

 

[LostSoul]

Hey, here's a question.

In The Wrath of Khan, Spock saves the Enterprise by dying. He didn't really have any other option (although maybe if Wesley was around, everything would have been fine).

Is this a no-win scenario?

My answer is no, since Spock "wins" by dying.

And sometimes it's obvious that the protagonist is screwed (I'm thinking of For Whom the Bell Tolls) but the meaning that the protagonist lends to his death is what makes it a "win".

I can also see a situation where a player is given a "no-win" scenario because any option he takes leads to victory. In a situation like this, the player wants his PC to die in order to give his choice meaning; but is robbed of that death and so his choices are robbed of meaning.

 

[sniffles]

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.

After giving this some thought, I've concluded that I wouldn't consider the above no-win situations. It's true that sometimes PCs can't accomplish what they would prefer to accomplish. But when they have no choices at all, and can't accomplish anything but their own deaths, that's a no-win. If they can't flee the monster or defeat it, and after it kills them it will then go on to rampage through their beloved city, that's a no-win situation. If they are captured and imprisoned by their enemy and have no hope of escape, and their enemy does not offer them a devil's bargain or some other way out, that's a no-win. Those are the situations I really despise. Although I have to admit I'd despise it a lot to be in the situations you describe, ThirdWizard.

 

[Endur]

Lets talk about some famous no-win scenarios from the Lord of the Rings.

We know how the story will turn out, but Theoden does not know.

When Theoden says that the Doom of our time will happen in front of Minas Tirith, he knows that he and the other Rohirrim that ride to the aid of Minas Tirith can not defeat the forces of Mordor. Yet he says, "We will meet them in battle nonetheless."

Later, on the Paellnor Fields, when the Rohirrim cry out for "Death", they are not calling for the Death of the orcs. They are recognizing that they are going to die in battle.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

No win situations are what happens to people without the indomitable, untrammeled barbarian spirit! Conan finds a way.

Characters who submit meekly to "no-win" situations deserve their fate. Those who take bold, decisive action deserve to win, even if it means expending heaping great gobs of action points.

Moral dillemas can be solved in the same way. If you can't save both daughters, you needed more ranks in Swim or a cunning plan (wrench a branch free, mayhap?), you git; now blow your action points and dive in! As for townsfolk, why are they relying on adventurers to save them, anyway?

It's only a no-win if you fail.

Dying does not count as failing, provided you accomplish your objective in a suitably heroic manner.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It's only a no-win if you fail.

Not so. The idea of a no-win that is being discussed is a situation where the DM intends that there is no correct resolution. If he faces you with choosing whether to save your wife or mother from certain death a no-win scenario is one where REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU ATTEMPT TO DO, ONE OF THEM -WILL- DIE. If the DM intends to allow success at saving both, but that it will rely upon the precise nature of the attempt then it is no longer a no-win.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario from Trek is an excellent example because was intended to be a no-win scenario as noted above. Savik's first run at it she complains that it is an unfair test of her command abilities BECAUSE there was no way to win. Kirks first response to her is, "A no-win situation is something every commander might face, don't you think? So now you have something new to think about." His eventual clarification to her is that there ISN'T a correct resolution because it is a test of CHARACTER - to see how the candidate reacts to death, to a situation where there truly is no hope. They are interested in the reaction in and of itself; to see the qualities of the individual beyond the mere proficiency of their established training. Do they just give up and not try? Do they get angry? Do they try wild and outrageous things or continue to follow "uncreative" tactics? In a Starfleet training program for command officers it is a valuable tool because those reactions would help reveal the kind of command the trainee is best suited for. In D&D it has no place because it isn't necessary for the DM to do anything more than ask the player to describe their characters state of mind; to explain what motivations the character may have for doing this instead of that; etc.

Difficult choices with inevitable and equally distasteful outcomes will arise in D&D of their own accord - do I save the NPC child about to be eaten by the monster 20' to the West, or do I save my unconscious PC comrade Wolfgar 20' to the East by giving him a healing potion lest he die irrevocably at the end of the round? The DM does not need to ENGINEER these moments with the specified intent that the PC who is faced with the choice "lose" regardless of what he does. You may as well use the random blue-bolts-from-the-heavens for all the purpose such an exercise serves.

 

[orangefruitbat]

If I were the paladin, my actions would be clear. Understanding the moral calculus, I would allow the wizard to go free, and then actively aid in the defense of the town (I don't know the particulars of the threat, but usually the PCs would be able to help).

Once the threat was dealt with, I would then go to arrest the evil wizard. Being an honourable chap, I would tell the evil wizard exactly what I was going to do. Being not a complete idiot, I would have the PC wizard or placed close to the evil wizard to stop him from fleeing (prepared scrolls of dimenson lock to prevent teleporting, dispel magic to cancel flying, an anti-magic shell if possible, Silence spells, etc.) Even if if this plan is insufficient to stop the evil wizard, I would have done my duty.

If I were the more pragmatic rogue in the group, I would figure that the paladin's plan probably wouldn't work and was too high a risk. I would hide close to the evil wizard, and once he was done saving the town, I would sneak attack the life out of him with my poisoned short swords...

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.
[/I].

 

[Menexenus]

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.

Of course, this is even stickier, because Yoda *lied*. Luke *didn't* die and neither did his friends!

Well, I guess we could just say that Yoda was *wrong* instead of saying that he outright lied. But if we are likening Yoda to the DM in the original example, then the DM is offering up options/consequences that he doesn't actually follow through with once the choice is made.

I'm curious what people think about this. Is wading through the moral dilemma worth the deception on the part of the DM? (You get to experience the moral dilemma without suffering the nasty consequences of your choice.) Or does this kind of deception on the part of the DM (where he indicates something bad will happen if you make a certain choice but doesn't follow through) cheapen all future choices that the DM asks you to make?

I'm honestly not sure...

 

[orangefruitbat]

Well, it seems that Yoda were merely overly pessimistic, rather than outright lying - he knew that Vader was Luke's father and feared that Luke would be turned if his training was not complete. Neither is wrong - depending on their point of view. However, Jedi do lie occasionally (and Qui-Gon cheats at dice).

A similar example of a moral quandry is in ROTJ. When Luke is in front of the emperor, he can a) strike down the emperor and fall to the dark side or b) allow his friends to die (how he could prevent the destruction of the Rebel fleet or the commandos on Endor is unclear). Instead, he chooses to sacrifice himself, hoping that his father will repent.

Of course, this is even stickier, because Yoda *lied*. Luke *didn't* die and neither did his friends!

Well, I guess we could just say that Yoda was *wrong* instead of saying that he outright lied. But if we are likening Yoda to the DM in the original example, then the DM is offering up options/consequences that he doesn't actually follow through with once the choice is made.

I'm curious what people think about this. Is wading through the moral dilemma worth the deception on the part of the DM? (You get to experience the moral dilemma without suffering the nasty consequences of your choice.) Or does this kind of deception on the part of the DM (where he indicates something bad will happen if you make a certain choice but doesn't follow through) cheapen all future choices that the DM asks you to make?

I'm honestly not sure...