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

[Stormonu]

I think it's fine if organizations have clear goals and standards in an adventure. It's fine for the author to say the Golden Vault frowns on certain actions and doing certain actions would affect the party or character's standing in the organization.

What I don't want is the author arbitrarily punishing the party for not following their morality or way of doing things. The stage should be set, not the lines read for the players.

Recently, I've been reading back through some 2E adventure modules and I find myself shaking my head in sections where the author goes out of their way to punish the players if they don't explicitly choose the same solution the author had in mind for the adventure.

Egregious Example - DL16 - World of Krynn, "The Missing Master Lor"

Spoiler

At the end of the adventure, after rescuing a young child, the characters are given three options for a reward:

"A reward then, that is whats called for, a reward. Ah, but I am weakened and can not hold this form long, so you must choose. Her form shudders, but her eye is keen and shrewd. What will it be? Will you accept my thanks and gratitude? Perhaps someday I can bring you good fortune and offer some boon you seek. Or perhaps I can magic my most prized possession here for you , a treasure beyond compare, payment enough for all the agony you have suffered and perhaps you can buy some ease? Still, you have suffered long and hard perhaps twere best you had avoided this ill adventure. Would you have me turn back time so you will be healed of all harms suffered and this adventure will have never been? For this too, I can do. What shall it be? The old hags milky eyes look at you with calculating intelligence, awaiting your decision."

So, if you choose "Turn back time", you get sent back in time (any one who died does come back to life, though), miss the whole adventure and someone else gets the credit. Cue moralizing PSA about "nothing is earned without sacrifice". No reward whatsoever.

If you choose "Treasure" you get a halfling sized owl made of ivory. However, by the time you get back home, it turns into a real normal-sized owl and flies away. Cue moralizing PSA about "wealth is fleeting". No reward whatsoever.

If you choose "Future Favor", you get healed of all damage and anyone who died is brought back to life. Likewise, on your way back to town you find a vein of silver ore (its worth is not mentioned, and this is Dragonlance, which uses steel coins...).

Essentially, you have to guess what the author thinks is the right decision to get a reward, else you get shafted - rather than letting the PCs really make their own choice and go with it.

 

[Reynard]

I think it's fine if organizations have clear goals and standards in an adventure. It's fine for the author to say the Golden Vault frowns on certain actions and doing certain actions would affect the party or character's standing in the organization.

What I don't want is the author arbitrarily punishing the party for not following their morality or way of doing things. The stage should be set, not the lines read for the players.

Recently, I've been reading back through some 2E adventure modules and I find myself shaking my head in sections where the author goes out of their way to punish the players if they don't explicitly choose the same solution the author had in mind for the adventure.

Egregious Example - DL16 - World of Krynn, "The Missing Master Lor"

Spoiler

At the end of the adventure, after rescuing a young child, the characters are given three options for a reward:

"A reward then, that is whats called for, a reward. Ah, but I am weakened and can not hold this form long, so you must choose. Her form shudders, but her eye is keen and shrewd. What will it be? Will you accept my thanks and gratitude? Perhaps someday I can bring you good fortune and offer some boon you seek. Or perhaps I can magic my most prized possession here for you , a treasure beyond compare, payment enough for all the agony you have suffered and perhaps you can buy some ease? Still, you have suffered long and hard perhaps twere best you had avoided this ill adventure. Would you have me turn back time so you will be healed of all harms suffered and this adventure will have never been? For this too, I can do. What shall it be? The old hags milky eyes look at you with calculating intelligence, awaiting your decision."

So, if you choose "Turn back time", you get sent back in time (any one who died does come back to life, though), miss the whole adventure and someone else gets the credit. Cue moralizing PSA about "nothing is earned without sacrifice". No reward whatsoever.

If you choose "Treasure" you get a halfling sized owl made of ivory. However, by the time you get back home, it turns into a real normal-sized owl and flies away. Cue moralizing PSA about "wealth is fleeting". No reward whatsoever.

If you choose "Future Favor", you get healed of all damage and anyone who died is brought back to life. Likewise, on your way back to town you find a vein of silver ore (its worth is not mentioned, and this is Dragonlance, which uses steel coins...).

Essentially, you have to guess what the author thinks is the right decision to get a reward, else you get shafted - rather than letting the PCs really make their own choice and go with it.

Dragonlance? Moralizing?! I am SHOCKED!

 

[pukunui]

Because the organization is run by metallic dragons. They undoubtedly consider themselves above petty humanoid laws, and they're all about the hoarding of wealth, even the "good" ones.

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!

OK so apparently the book has almost no details on the Golden Vault organization whatsoever, which is rather disappointing. I think we'll just have to say that any oddities in the morality of these heists is due to the (rumored) influence of metallic dragons.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The reason the prison is not told is that they don't trust the prison to act on the Clan’s behalf.

OK so apparently the book has almost no details on the Golden Vault organization whatsoever, which is rather disappointing. I think we'll just have to say that any oddities in the morality of these heists is due to the (rumored) influence of metallic dragons.

it has details they are just secretive and most of the big info is missing.

The group though is explicitly not Lawful Good and I don’t get were the idea they are came from.

 

[pukunui]

it has details they are just secretive and most of the big info is missing.

The big info is what I was hoping for. I was hoping the DM would get the full story, as it were. Instead, it seems like we're left to make it up ourselves as usual.

 

[Reynard]

The big info is what I was hoping for. I was hoping the DM would get the full story, as it were. Instead, it seems like we're left to make it up ourselves as usual.

It seems like such a strange decision. I don't understand 5E creative direction at all. It is so shallow and frankly lazy.

 

[pukunui]

It seems like such a strange decision. I don't understand 5E creative direction at all. It is so shallow and frankly lazy.

Same. I love the game, and I'll admit I own most of the books, but yeah ... if only I had more time to be a DIY DM!

 

[ECMO3]

In the recent Prisoner 13 adventure, to me the adventure submits that there is a morally "better" ending and the other endings are morally problematic.

Spoilers for non-DMs or whomever plans to play this adventure:

Spoiler: Do NOT read unless you are OK to know how it ends

The "good" ending is that the PCs aid and abet the Neutral Evil criminal mastermind with a ledger of all the names, crimes, and prisoner numbers of everyone ever incarcerated at this prison. In exchange, the client gets their stolen gold back.

In this ending, the mastermind criminal then relays the information to her agents for later use. What exactly will happen as a result is unclear. Maybe the information will be sold and enable a mass murderer to escape the prison one day to torture more innocents. Who can know for sure? There's nothing in the adventure that allows PCs to ascertain or trust what exactly would happen, but it seems like whatever it is, it nets out to be "good" because the client will get their stolen treasure?

Meanwhile, the "bad" ending is bad because it is gruesome to hurt or kill the criminal mastermind, and "the organization would not approve of this method" so the PCs get no reward at all.

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.

However, even if that were so, it is interesting that the adventure utterly fails to provide any guidance or clarity on the consequences of the PCs action should they choose the "good" ending. Can the PCs know this outcome is "good" if they don't or can't assess the consequences of aiding and abetting a criminal mastermind?

I have felt a similar serious cognitive dissonance with the presumptuously singular ending of The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and of course the controversial moralizing in Mazfroth's Mighty Digressions of Candlekeep Mysteries.

I know many gaming tables are comfortable with whatever-goes/chaotic PC actions, or shades-of-grey plot lines. I also understand that some D&D players prioritize redemption arcs over accountability for evil actions. So I acknowledge this moral quandary may not be a quandary for everyone.

However, for me, I am seriously disturbed by what's happening out there in the real world. Horrible awful things are happening every day, over which I have no control. D&D is my escape from reality. I get to day-dream a fictional world where good people can effectively bring more good to the world. At my gaming table, I simply don't feel comfortable putting my players in a position that affects their conscience. Which means I have to lean through that discomfort, futilely wish that WoTC had been more intentional or nuanced with their moralizing, and rewrite the adventure for my table.

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?

I think D&D is a really bad place to look for morality. Combat is and has always been a central element of the game, to include killing sentient intelligent humanoids, if not humans themselves.

It is pretty difficult to rationalize that kind of behavior against most modern concepts of morality. The average 5th level character in D&D has probably personally killed more people than anyone in history other than the crew of Enola Gay and Boxcar.

Heck recognizing a polytheistic world alone is probably antithetical to the basic moral constructs of probably half the world population.

I think if you are going to escape in D&D you are best served leaving real life concepts of morality behind and either ignoring that completely or creating a new make believe constructs to follow.

 

[Reynard]

I think D&D is a really bad place to look for morality. Combat is and has always been a central element of the game, to include killing sentient intelligent humanoids, if not humans themselves.

This adventure should have ZERO combat, otherwise the PCs are dead. The moral question in this adventure, such that it is, isn't about killing goblins, it is about not doing the expedient but brutal thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I feel like the moralizing started when they tell you the 'criminal mastermind' is Evil.