DMing: How do I setup philosophical in-character discussions?

[Darth Shoju]

Looks like you allready have some good ideas going there. Here's a couple of situations that came up in my campaign that produced debate (which happened often):

1) The leader of a criminal organization that had cels throughout two kingdoms wanted the party to do something for him. He threatened to have his cels randomly kill innocents every day the party didn't do what he asked. One PC refused and started to walk away, which prompted the party wizard to imprison him in a wall of force and then agree to the terms (she said she was afraid he would be killed if he walked away).

2) The party was captured by a bounty hunter that was about 4 levels lower than them. On the way to delivering them to his employer they escaped and captured him. He promised to take them to his employer if they spared his life. The party wizard agreed, while the party rogue (a member of a minor noble house) swore openly he would kill the bounty hunter at the first opportunity. For some reason no-one in the party believed he would do it. When they met up with the bounty hunter's employer and were in the middle of combating him (the bounty hunter was assisting the party), the rogue attacked said bounty hunter and killed him. Some of the party felt guilty about this, as they had sworn to protect the bounty hunter. The rogue repented to appease the party but was not sincere.

Overall I found it fairly easy to get these discussions going, but I think that had a lot to do with the players. I didn't have a problem with it when it related to the plot and it's advancement, or the character's advancement, but occasionally they would engage in philosophical debate that wasn't really related to the plot (but was tangentally related to the game world). These debates would last over an hour and involve 2-3 players. I and the other players would just watch while this happened and ulitmately get bored and restless. I usually had to draw them to a conclusion of some sort so we could keep playing. I guess all I am saying is just make sure that eveyone is having fun.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's an example of how I, as a DM, set up philosophical debate in a campaign:

Quickleaf, that sounds awesome!

 

[blargney the second]

I just realized that the discussions can involve different scales of ramifications. The one I engaged in was a cosmological Law vs Chaos discussion with an avatar of a goddess, so I was thinking really big picture when I started this thread. But there are whole layers that can be tapped, from personal ethics all the way up to universals. I suspect that the most engaging conversations in RPG terms are the ones that touch many levels simultaneously, especially the personal one. Giving the PCs choices to make also seems integral. If there's no choice, they have no reason (or even a way) to invest themselves.

Here's what this thread has inspired. I'd love to hear pointers or ideas for encounters for how to pull it off best.

1) There is a large group of lycanthropes that has stolen a lyre of building to build themselves a city on another continent. (The PCs are tasked with retrieving the lyre.) The lycanthropes are involved with organized crime, and they're upping the crime rates to pull resources for their new settlement.
2) There is a fanatically anti-lycanthrope church that wants to kill them all. The church has gone so far as to destroy an entire nation (to which a PC belonged). The ex-nation's military had created a strain of lycanthropy that could be passed on by afflicted ones.

Stick the PCs in between the natural killers who are doing bad things to ensure their own survival, and the theoretically good zealots who will stop at nothing to exterminate them.

 

[Wik]

Way back when, I tried to do something similar in a Forgotten Realms campaign I was running. It was 2e days, and I was getting tired of the group trouncing the fights I threw at them, so I wanted an RP session. The group wound up talking with a farmer or some other tradesman about mortality. The Cleric in the group really got into character, while the farmer railed against the gods' will (he had just lost his son). It was sort of "philosophical", although I quickly learned I'm terrible at debating, as the cleric player easily convinced the farmer that his son's death was god's will.

So, my big advice there is, make sure you can debate.

Oh, and it's nice to see another Islander on EN World. Woot.

 

[howandwhy99]

1) There is a large group of lycanthropes that has stolen a lyre of building to build themselves a city on another continent. (The PCs are tasked with retrieving the lyre.) The lycanthropes are involved with organized crime, and they're upping the crime rates to pull resources for their new settlement.
2) There is a fanatically anti-lycanthrope church that wants to kill them all. The church has gone so far as to destroy an entire nation (to which a PC belonged). The ex-nation's military had created a strain of lycanthropy that could be passed on by afflicted ones.

Stick the PCs in between the natural killers who are doing bad things to ensure their own survival, and the theoretically good zealots who will stop at nothing to exterminate them.

Ouch. That seems like a murky ethical situation. I'm guessing your campaign world is a bit darker than most, yes? I would watch out for potential consequences if your players choose to ignore your proddings. If they simply follow through with orders, they may feel like they've won without a clear victory. It's not a bad ethical dilemma to use, but watch out for a lose-lose situation if they don't take the bait.

I'd try to reveal the dichotomy fairly early so they can see what is really going on. Then they can walk away from it if they don't want to get involved.


In regards to philosophical discussion, my guess is you're referring more to ethical concerns than other traditional philosophic debates. The laws of nature, foundations of logic, or nature of man don't normally come up in RPGs.

Something like your Cosmological Law vs Chaos could work though if the players become interested. The big warning here is most belief systems in Fantasy RPGs involve religion. Sepulchrave works it nicely into his storyhour by having theology as the centerpiece of the campaign. But the guy has a PhD in Comparative Religions from what I understand. The players are already steeped in the specifics of their religions. Without that knowledge it would be quite a different story.

My advice would be to offer some ethical discourse at points and see how the players take to it.

For example:

1. The players find potential allies in a dungeon. Instead of automatically joining or separating they want to know why they should trust the PCs. Information shared by the NPCs would (likely) be commensurate to what the PCs share.

2. Before the cleric at the local temple cures the PCs she wants to know what Gods they follow. Depending on how the PCs convince the cleric their Gods and goals are in line with her's, she will change the costs and availability of healing.

These are just starters really. But to dig in and play out your scenario above will take a strong commitment - both in the 2 NPC groups and in discussing morality in game.

 

[Quickleaf]

Quickleaf, that sounds awesome!

Thanks LostSoul; it was great fun.

Here's what this thread has inspired. I'd love to hear pointers or ideas for encounters for how to pull it off best.

To better help, could you give a snapshot of the PCs? How many, what classes, alignments, religions, homelands, genders, motives and so forth?

1) There is a large group of lycanthropes that has stolen a lyre of building to build themselves a city on another continent. (The PCs are tasked with retrieving the lyre.) The lycanthropes are involved with organized crime, and they're upping the crime rates to pull resources for their new settlement.

I gather that the lycanthropes are an oppressed minority; I would portray them as animalistic rather than murderous evil, and I would portray them as advocating a return to man's animal nature, perhaps eschewing technology and the conveniences of civilization?
A lot depends on how you portray lycanthropy in your game - is it a curse? a lineage? a sub-species of humanity? a blessing? You present the idea that lycanthropy was a military-created disease. A lot depends on how the characters (PCs & NPCs alike) view this lycanthropic disease - is there a cure? does it transfer to one's children? are victims pitied? feared? both? You've got to provide the lycanthropes with some redeeming qualities otherwise the PCs won't empathize with them.

I would also point out to you that stealing the lyre is a no-brainer - of course the PCs will do it without hesitation. After all, buildings can be made by hand - you don't need a magical lyre to do that, it's just more convenient. Instead, I would make the lyre critical to the nascent lycanthrope nation's survival; say it allows them to channel their fury into productive work, or what have you. Make it something the PCs will think twice about taking from them because it will dramatically worsen the lycanthropes' plight.

Questions:
* What kind of organized crime are the lycanthropes involved with?
* Who's their leader and what's his/her motivation?
* Before it was stolen, how was the lyre being used? Who used it?
* Why do they need all this money they're stealing? To purchase boats and supplies? To buy slave labor? To pay the blood price for crimes they've committed?
* Why do the lycanthropes need to resort to crime? Are there laws against employing lycanthropes? Are they killed on sight?
* Are the lycanthropes deliberately trying to increase their numbers by afflicting innocents? Or do they choose victims according to certain criteria?

2) There is a fanatically anti-lycanthrope church that wants to kill them all. The church has gone so far as to destroy an entire nation (to which a PC belonged). The ex-nation's military had created a strain of lycanthropy that could be passed on by afflicted ones.

It would be easy to paint the church as "fanatics", but I encourage you to present a more complex picture. If the church had the power to influence the military (or has its own military) enough to destroy another nation, then that church is vastly powerful with a large number of supporters...and by necessity has heresies which have formed over time. These may have been repressed brutally, but their echoes are still there. The majority may be anti-lycanthrope, but is that universally true of all the church's followers?

Questions:
* What is the core of the church's teaching? (think the Ten Commandments, or the Five Pillars of Islam)
* How has the church's doctrine evolved over time? What heresies are now considered orthodox?
* Was the destroyed nation composed of lycanthropes? Of those descended from lycanthropes? Was it supplying lycanthrope terrorists? Did it harbor lycanthrope criminals?
* Are there heresies within the church that espouse a doctrine of reconciliation or redemption of lycanthropes? How would such a heresy be handled by the church?
* Did the church's actions constitute genocide? Or was it more standard warfare? Is the "destroyed" nation intact with survivors living under church dominion now? Is there an attempt to conver the nation's people or are they seen as a lost cause?
* What about lycanthropy rubs the church's theology in the wrong way? Is it political/economic matter or a theological one? Does it have to do with the animal human soul vs. transcendent human soul arguement?
* In fighting murderous evil lycanthropes have the church warriors themselves become depraved, or worse yet afflicted with lycanthropy?

 

[babomb]

I don't know, but I think you could do worse than read Sepulchrave's story hour.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Oops, double post.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I go out of my way to discourage this type of thing as a DM and as a player. I adamantly will not participate in such a discussion if it does happen. It seems to be an exercise in staggeringly bad judgment to try and entice players to do it, unless you are keeping notes and intend to use what you learn about their positions against them in the future. That is also why you should not participate in this discussion yourself – others in the group will be doing that to you.

Such is the way of the world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed