D&D 5E Candlekeep Mysteries: Mazfroth’s Mighty Digressions ethics issues

[Mort]

. This means that diplomatic PCs risk becoming accessories to their crimes.

Not really,

It means diplomatic PCs have serious leverage.

The villains are such that they don't quite know how human justice works - other than the fact that humans are perfectly willing to come in an murder them at the drop of a hat (since this has already happened).

Industrious PCs can convince this group that giving up the books to Candle Keep and possibly paying reparations (this one would be a tough sell, but maybe there's a PC with serious persuasion in the party), is the only way they get to continue operating at all.

And as already stated, diplomatic PCs are not accessories - there is no interest (more than likely) in a cover up, just recovery of goods.

 

[D1Tremere]

Caveat emptor!

Seriously though, codes of ethics are likely to vary greatly in such a diverse and mutable world. One thing that is more straight forward, at least in this circumstance, may be the law. The initial book is sold in the markets of Baldur’s Gate, a city known for having particularly strict laws regarding counterfeit goods and selling dangerous magical material. They also have a mercenary company called the Flaming Fists that they would be more than happy to dispatch when questions of improperly taxed dangerous magical goods comes up!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

"Becoming an accessory" implies that you have chosen not to report a crime to the authorities. Are there authorities to whom the PCs could report the antagonists? (That's a real question, I haven't read the adventure.)

It's set in Baldur's Gate, so you can report them to the Guard (because they actually sell their books in the wealthy district) or to the Flaming Fist... the Fist probably won't care without being bribed, the Guard will probably just kick them out of the wealthy market.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't read this one yet and maybe this makes me old fashioned but the people selling the books are responsible for every innocent death especially if they are aware of the consequences of their actions. So no, I don't think the PCs are being murder hobos if they kill them.

Ideally they could subdue them and take them to trial, but if that's not an option then personally I would assume that they will continue the pattern. They have shown that any time it's beneficial for them to murder innocents directly or indirectly they will do so. That doesn't deserve mercy IMHO.

Of course maybe I've just been playing too much Assassin's Creed lately.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Present the PCs with the situation, leave it up to them to decide on the rights and wrongs of it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I haven't read this one yet and maybe this makes me old fashioned but the people selling the books are responsible for every innocent death especially if they are aware of the consequences of their actions. So no, I don't think the PCs are being murder hobos if they kill them.

Worth pointing out that there are ZERO innocent deaths from their actions.

The adventure points out that they are only copying valuable books: the cheaper books they sell are the real deal. They have sold two valuable books, both of which ended up in Candlekeep.

 

[Mort]

Worth pointing out that there are ZERO innocent deaths from their actions.

The adventure points out that they are only copying valuable books: the cheaper books they sell are the real deal. They have sold two valuable books, both of which ended up in Candlekeep.

While true,

This comes to mind.

 

[Oofta]

Worth pointing out that there are ZERO innocent deaths from their actions.

The adventure points out that they are only copying valuable books: the cheaper books they sell are the real deal. They have sold two valuable books, both of which ended up in Candlekeep.

I haven't read it, but the intent is clear: they don't care who dies as long as they have something to gain. Not only did they think it was perfectly okay if people died as a direct cause of their actions, they went through with the plan. That is still a crime.

It's kind of like blaming the bullet for killing someone after firing a gun indiscriminately into a crowd, or saying that it wasn't a crime because you happened to get lucky and miss everyone.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I haven't read it, but the intent is clear: they don't care who dies as long as they have something to gain.

If you had read it, you would know that they are unaware that the copied books are dangerous. They are negligent, but not deliberately murderous.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, this adventure has quite a bit of grey morality in it.

The villains are essentially just trying to sell knock off goods. It just so happens that the knockoffs are actually murderous monsters. They villains aren't actively trying to kill anyone, they just need money, and see this as the most expedient way!

Wow. This is the "randomly shooting a gun at a train with no specific intent to kill someone" type scenario. It's reckless behavior so likely to cause great bodily harm or death to strangers than it's the equivalent of actual intent to murder.