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

[Emoshin]

It's free and easy to read. Get Prisoner 13 at no cost - D&D Beyond

It isn't a black ops site -- it is a remote, maximum security prison for the world's worst criminals. The PCs are hired to get information, not assassinate someone.

Man I hate it when people make me defend WotC...

True, and the remaining questions that @Tonguez asked are entirely pertinent ("Why is a heist the best option? Why is handing sensitive information to dodgy people the good outcome?")

 

[Reynard]

"Why is a heist the best option?

How else are you going to get the info. The staff at the Panopticon is not going to just let you walk in and interrogate the inmates.

Why is handing sensitive information to dodgy people the good outcome?

The module does not use the word "good" at all. It does not define a good outcome. What it says is that if the PCs just lop off her arm and deliver that, they don't get paid. It says that Korda wants the list as payment. None of that stops the PCs from finding another solution.

It's like no one has ever played a module before.

 

[Emoshin]

How else are you going to get the info. The staff at the Panopticon is not going to just let you walk in and interrogate the inmates.

But why?

Why is that outside of the realm of possibility for the Golden Vault to arrange a lawful and good treaty between their agent and the Lords' Alliance?

Why is the lawful diplomatic approach less likely to succeed than breaking into a maximum security prison?

Why is the lawful diplomatic approach less important to strive for, compared to trying to risk compromising the security of an important institution?

Why does the Golden Vault never even consider the repercussions of what they are asking adventurers to do?

Why would these (and other) considerations be irrelevant or impossible or improbable compared to the default presentation in the adventure as written?

The module does not use the word "good" at all. It does not define a good outcome. What it says is that if the PCs just lop off her arm and deliver that, they don't get paid. It says that Korda wants the list as payment. None of that stops the PCs from finding another solution.

You're totally right about. The OP is primarily about my concern about the absence of the various "good" and "bad" solutions and their implications from the adventure structure as written.

It's like no one has ever played a module before.

Not sure what you mean by that in context of the OP actually states, but I will presume you had good intent by saying this.

 

[cranberry]

It's their product. They can write it any way they choose.

It's then up to each person to decide whether they want to buy it.

 

[pukunui]

But why?

Why is that outside of the realm of possibility for the Golden Vault to arrange a lawful and good treaty between their agent and the Lords' Alliance?

Why is the lawful diplomatic approach less likely to succeed than breaking into a maximum security prison?

Why is the lawful diplomatic approach less important to strive for, compared to trying to risk compromising the security of an important institution?

Why does the Golden Vault never even consider the repercussions of what they are asking adventurers to do?

Why would these (and other) considerations be irrelevant or impossible or improbable compared to the default presentation in the adventure as written?

I don't think any of us can answer those questions until we know more about the Golden Vault organization. Somebody needs to hurry up and spill the beans on that section of the book!

 

[grankless]

loving the concept of characters in a fictional universe having opinions and morals as being "moralizing". grow some thicker skin if you're mad that you're being told "murder is not approved"

 

[Emoshin]

grow some thicker skin if you're mad that you're being told "murder is not approved"

who actually stated they are mad at being told that "murder is not approved"? Where does it actually say that anywhere here?

C'mon folks, let's at least take the time to read what people write.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Hey, I'm just going by what was described in the OP.
I don't actually purchase anything from WotC these days - just like commenting on here.

The Adventure is free you don't have to purchase anything.

 

[LordEntrails]

But why?

Why is that outside of the realm of possibility for the Golden Vault to arrange a lawful and good treaty between their agent and the Lords' Alliance?

Why is the lawful diplomatic approach less likely to succeed than breaking into a maximum security prison?

Why is the lawful diplomatic approach less important to strive for, compared to trying to risk compromising the security of an important institution?

Simple, if the issue could be solved another way, then there would not be a heist style adventure.
So, if you want to run a heist style adventure, figure out a reason for all of these. If you don't, then don't run the adventure because it was solved some other way.

There is not an adventure written that doesn't make the basic assumptions: "This is all happening as written so that we have an adventure." It's meta gaming at its most necessary, if you want to play that adventure.

 

[Emoshin]

Simple, if the issue could be solved another way, then there would not be a heist style adventure.
So, if you want to run a heist style adventure, figure out a reason for all of these. If you don't, then don't run the adventure because it was solved some other way.

There is not an adventure written that doesn't make the basic assumptions: "This is all happening as written so that we have an adventure." It's meta gaming at its most necessary, if you want to play that adventure.

Fair to your point, and it's still not that simple as you put it.

Because even within that meta gaming paradigm, I actually have seen adventures where the author thinks through the different potential options. They take the time and effort to cover a handful of possibilities and describe suggested outcomes/implications.

They don't even need to moralize it with judgmental descriptors - they just write if the PCs do A or B or C or D, then here are the suggested short-term and long-term consequences of those actions.

I don't recall the specific names of the shining examples of this (one was from Monte Cook, one of the Ptolus adventures), but when I do see that, I am highly impressed and would like to see a lot more of it, personally.

Definitely helps with new and/or busy DMs who appreciate the extra guidance!