D&D 5E Is it right for WoTC to moralize us in an adventure module?

Emoshin

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
In my game, no. My players don't feel comfortable with aiding and abetting criminals. Also see the second last paragraph in the OP.
Definitely not a good idea to get a campaign book that revolves around parties conducting heists then!
It's maybe not a good idea
I would not say it's definitely not a good idea

Assuming that:
1. The other adventures in the module have set-ups with good/positive intentions (which seems to be the case according to the reviews I read)
2. The other adventures facilitate or are mindful of at least one "good" outcome that does not require aiding & abetting those who engage in serious crimes

Then at least 12 of 13 adventures in the campaign book would have potential for my table, and so it could still be a good idea!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
It's maybe not a good idea
I would not say it's definitely not a good idea

Assuming that:
1. The other adventures in the module have set-ups with good/positive intentions (which seems to be the case according to the reviews I read)
2. The other adventures facilitate or are mindful of at least one "good" outcome that does not require aiding & abetting those who engage in serious crimes

Then at least 12 of 13 adventures in the campaign book would have potential for my table, and so it could still be a good idea!
Sure but the heists involve trespass, theft, and probably fraud, coercion, blackmail, espionage, bribery, stalking, invasion of privacy, and possibly assault, battery, intimidation or murder by the PCs. So it just tickled me that you said they don’t associate with criminals… do you catch my drift?
 
Last edited:

The other adventures facilitate or are mindful of at least one "good" outcome that does not require aiding & abetting those who engage in serious crimes
There are a great many ways to resolve Prisoner 13 without doing anything to aid Prisoner 13!

What this adventure does not do is tell the players what the plan is. They need to come up with that on their own. And I expect the other adventures are like that too.

A typical Mission Impossible type plan would be to convince Prisoner 13 that the vault is about to be destroyed by a volcanic eruption. Then she will want to move the loot. Thus, she will voluntarily give the key to a party member who happens to be posing as a member of her organisation. Note that the genre trope is the more complicated and intricate the plan, the greater the chance that it will succeed.

Of course my players will probably prefer to torture her, steel her skin, then lie to the quest giver, telling them that she was perfectly fine when they left her.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Unfortunately, the adventure offers exactly zero guidance here for DMs and players. It moralizes us with the different endings without context or assurance that the "good" ending is actually the morally correct one.

One could say that the author themselves is not trying to moralize which ending is good or bad, as it is only conveyed as the opinion of the organization in the fiction.



If/when your moral code does not jive with a moral position that is implied in a WoTC adventure, how do you react? What would you like to see ideally?
Yes WOTC been Mortalizing us for a few years now. So they can do their morals however they way they want. Good and Bad in this adventure is not alignment but best success and what works.
 

Emoshin

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Sure but the heists involve trespass, theft, and probably fraud, coercion, blackmail, espionage, bribery, stalking, invasion of privacy, and possibly assault, battery, intimidation or murder by the PCs. So it just tickled me that you said they don’t associate with criminals… do you catch my drift?
I wrote " those who engage in serious crimes", not just "criminals". I was thinking of very serious crimes, while trying to avoid getting caught up in Evil labels.

I catch your drift and I have considered it and it does not lead to me the same conclusion of "Definitely not a good idea to get a campaign book that revolves around parties conducting heists then!" It's a maybe, or maybe not, for me -- I am undecided.

TL;DR: Based on what I read & interpret from the book, and not based on you speculate or interpret is in the book for my gaming table (which you know so little as to have zero authority on the matter), is what make the final determination for my group. Thanks for your thoughts too! I've considered it, no more, no less.
 


Oofta

Legend
It doesnt matter if it works or not. We don't measure 'morality of a decision' by 'effectiveness'.

For example, sacrificing an innocent child to stop a Demonic incursion (and save the lives of millions) is still an Evil act.

It may be effective. It may be the lesser of two evils. But it's still an evil act.

As a general rule, an Evil person would do it with little qualms. A Neutral person might do it, if there was no other option open, and be remorseful. A Good person almost certainly would not do it and even if they were to, would struggle to live with themselves afterwards.


Genocide isnt just an entire race.

PCs engage in genocide, when hired by the town to 'deal with Hobgoblin tribe living in the woods, that's been causing problems' if they go to the tribe, and slaughter them/ drive them off their lands (unless in self-defense or the defense of others, and no other option is reasonably open to them, and the violence is proportionate to the threat).

I would never run a scenario about wiping out an otherwise peaceful group just because the PCs were asked to unless I made it obvious the entity doing the hiring is actually the evil one. Life is too short and we don't have enough hours of gaming to spend it on no-win scenarios. If the PCs are hired to deal with some kobolds, it's because the kobolds are eating babies left and right. The hobgoblins are not peaceful, they're at the forefront of an army that is subjugating, killing or enslaving everyone in their path.

That seems to be the fault of the author, and not a problem with moral dilemmas generally.

Different people game for different reasons. If you want to get into philosophical debates about morality, more power to you. By and large I just want to get together with friends, make bad puns and roll some dice.

As you're well aware, I dont like to spring 'gotchas' on players. If a moral dillema is in play (or a question of alignment) Im more than happy to 'break character' and have an OOG chat with the Player about the Gods opinions on the morality of the decision (before the decision is taken) and (if relevant) any impact it might have on the characters actual alignment (or any game interactions). Ultimately the decision rests with the player; I just ensure as much as possible that it's an informed decision.

I will flat out tell people if they're about to do something I consider truly evil, or at least ensure the situation is clear. But I don't allow evil PCs or acts out of preference. I won't stop someone from having their PC cross that line, but the PC will become an NPC.

Im never going to tell someone how to play their PC. If you want to play a LG person who engages in murder 'for the greater good' then that's a common trope and I'm OK with that. I'll only pause to tell you that (in the eyes of the Gods, and when it comes to your PCs final judgement in the afterlife) he's objectively an Evil person (or at a minimum, committing Evil acts), regardless of how he thinks of himself, the characters own justifications or beliefs or what is written on his character sheet.

If you really want your LG Paladin to ascend to the Seven heavens at Torms side on death, don't slaughter kids. Of course there is nothing wrong with playing a LG Paladin, zealously convinced of the righteousness of his actions as he slaughters infidels. History is full of similar examples.

It's just you're in for a rude shock if you pick up a Talisman of Ultimate Good when it burns the crap out of your hand.

So, like I said. I'm never going to have genocide on the table. If the group needs to take out a clutch of kobolds, it's because these particular kobolds are an ongoing threat and have given no sign that they will ever change.

Which doesn't mean that NPCs always have clear motivations or can never change. NPCs have shown unexpected misunderstandings, motivations and simply feeling like they have no choice. In addition, some NPCs are evil, others are Evil and a few are EVIL!!! Making a deal with the first group happens now and then, make a deal with the last group and it will probably end up costing in ways you didn't expect. But telling someone that thought they were playing LG being burned by a talisman of pure good? To me, that's a gotcha. Also a decision about a PC's alignment that I wouldn't make.

But the main problem that I have with moral dilemmas is that people think they're setting up a really cool scenario when it's really "Just play a neutral character who will do what they need to to get through the day because you're not given a good option." Setting up a moral dilemma that is both fun and makes people think is not an easy thing to do and I have yet to see it done well. Maybe others do it better. 🤷‍♂️
 


Emoshin

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Like killing things and stealing their stuff?
I don't understand how this question is pertinent to the specific assertion that TheSword made or to the entirety of what I wrote (unfortunately, you stripped out almost all of it and cherry-picked only 7 words in your quote), but here is what ChatGPT has to say about that in general:
1676219350741.png
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top