D&D 5E (2014) Missions and Moral Compass

[miniaturehoarder]

Ha! Moral dilemma?

Most of my players would deal with it like John Finnegan " If the cash is there we do not care!"

And do they often get to fight titanic tentacled abominations?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'd say that's a failure if that mission is the *only story you have prepared*.

If you also have a story about what happens after the PCs say no, then I don't see how you've failed.

That's a very good point, but prepping two different adventures, one of which I know I'm not going to use, is entirely too much work. If I could be very confident they'd turn the job down, this would be an interesting twist to the standard "adventure starts by being hired for a mission" trope.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you're a LG paladin and someone approaches you with a shady job - don't you now know about a potential crime against law and goodness that you should be thwarting? Would it be worth playing along just to find the other players and bring them to justice?

That depends on a lot of factors; hunting down absolutely every single lawbreaking and/or cruel act results in Chronic Hero Syndrome, wherein you get neither rest nor major work done because you're constantly detouring to fix everything. Superman can pull that off because he travels faster than sound (AFAICT), is essentially invulnerable to all harm, almost impossible to tire out, and (often) is both highly intelligent and nearly clairaudient (that is, capable of hearing/sensing things hundreds, even thousands of miles away). A "real" Paladin may have a deity's favor, but she's not a Kryptonian under a yellow sun; by having limitations, she must prioritize, and must occasionally refuse to deal with real issues for one reason or another.

In this case, the value in double-crossing (or exposing, or whatever) a dastardly scheme needs to be weighed against other pressing concerns. If the Paladin is not currently occupied with anything, or in fact is looking for things to deal with? Sure, she might go after it because a potential crime, or even a serious atrocity, could be averted and that is a Highly Valuable Thing to a Lawful Good Paladin. On the other hand, if it's simply a "guard this stolen merchandise" kind of job, while she has a quest to end a terrible and supernatural evil (and, therefore, an evil which only she and those like her are capable of dealing with, while others could deal with the stolen goods)? Priorities almost surely dictate that she hand such a task off to another legitimate authority, or even let it go, as she does so many other issues, because she can't be everywhere at once and solve everything. Care must be taken with such reasoning, always, because "I can't solve everything" can easily become an excuse for apathy; but the converse, "I *must* solve everything," isn't really acceptable either.

Sir Keldorn, of the Most Noble Order of the Radiant Heart (in Baldur's Gate 2), is an excellent example of a Paladin who understands that there are, and must be, priorities. He will engage in duplicity (e.g. lying about who he is, in an oblique way) if it will pursue a just end. He will ignore minor crimes and indecencies when lives are at stake or other problems emerge. He addresses his concerns about (most of...) his companions' behavior with a mild, diplomatic demeanor--and generally lets those issues slide without pressing them further. (I say "most" because he's rather racist toward Viconia if they're both in your party, but that's hardly surprising.)

A wise Paladin has a difficult path to walk, and will probably wish that he could do more than he is capable of--but will recognize that limits force one to have priorities, and well-constructed priorities force one to occasionally refuse to do a small good so that a large good may be done instead.

 

[delericho]

A variety of adventures are relaxing in a tavern.

A hooded figure approaches them, asks for their help, and offers a reward.

The adventurers say "but that would be WRONG!" and decline the offer.

Have you ever seen that happen?

Not as such. I've had PCs turn down plenty of jobs, but never for alignment reasons. (Actually, at one point I had a player whose characters would turn down any job, seemingly as a matter of principle. He also took the view that it was my job to successfully motivate his character. That was a long time ago - as far as I know, he doesn't play at all any more.)

How would your table respond, if the hooded quest-giver asked them to recover a Dragon Mask... and was an agent of the Cult of the Dragon?

How do the PCs know the QG is an agent of the cult? Why is the cult so foolish as to try to recuit meddling kids to get involved in their secret plot - don't they know that can only end badly for them?

What if the hooded quest-giver asked them to protect tree-cutters as they entered further into the Quivering Forest, and that meant defeating Seronalla the Whisperer and the elves, pixies, sprites, etc. of the Forest?

They'd probably take the job.

What if the hooded quest-giver wanted the PCs to act as "fifth column" support of a Mulmaster army invading Phlan, or vice versa?

Again, how do the PCs know that the QG is working for the enemy? And why is that enemy advertising their plans?

 

[ExploderWizard]

And do they often get to fight titanic tentacled abominations?

Those are the risks when you live by such a policy.

 

[Mephista]

A variety of adventures are relaxing in a tavern.

A hooded figure approaches them, asks for their help, and offers a reward.

The adventurers say "but that would be WRONG!" and decline the offer.

Have you ever seen that happen?

Once in a while. You get some people whom are just in it for being murder-hobos, and others who really play up their character's personality, and would object to such things. Most of the time, shadowy figures in taverns approaching random people just doesn't happen realistically. That implies a lot of in game setting elements (taverns of adventurers for hire, PCs have a reputation, etc) that's not common.

This type of plot hook is really dependent on a lot of things - not very common.

How would your table respond, if the hooded quest-giver asked them to recover a Dragon Mask... and was an agent of the Cult of the Dragon?

Most evil cultists don't go around advertising the fact. They usually lie and say they're someone reputable.

What if the hooded quest-giver asked them to protect tree-cutters as they entered further into the Quivering Forest, and that meant defeating Seronalla the Whisperer and the elves, pixies, sprites, etc. of the Forest?

Depends on the party. I mean, if we have a group of people who are just human and/or dwarf mercinaries, that's one thing. Elvish adventurers? Doubtful.

What if the hooded quest-giver wanted the PCs to act as "fifth column" support of a Mulmaster army invading Phlan, or vice versa?

Why isn't the king just sending out a draft? Or starting off as being hired already? That's not a plot hook, that's an entire campaign direction that should be understood by the players before the game start.



Now, the above is really just nitpicking. I think the real question that the OP was asking is, "How often do you have players that bring morals into the game, or are we all just mercenaries for hire?" Fairly often, with the right players. I don't play mercinary types, adventuring for money. I play people who are in the wrong place at the right time, and have different goals than presented.

 

[Riley37]

That's a very good point, but prepping two different adventures, one of which I know I'm not going to use, is entirely too much work. If I could be very confident they'd turn the job down, this would be an interesting twist to the standard "adventure starts by being hired for a mission" trope.

A cogent point.

Some variations:

(A) You have a game session from 7 to 10 o'clock. At 9:30, the PCs are returning from Mission A. At 9:45, they're resolving downtime activities, and that's when you start the tavern scene. At 10, the PCs have answered, the session is over and you know which story to prepare for the following session. (Also, foreshadowing, and the players might have good ideas between one session and the next).

This breaks the pattern of "session start and end = storyline start and end". Not viable if you're running Adventurer's League, of course, but breaking assumptions *you didn't even know you had* can sometimes lead to an especially enjoyable game.

(B) If the PCs turn down the mission as offered, then the storyline which you then make available, involves going to the same locations, with the same inhabitants. Perhaps the mask-seeking cultist tries to solo the mission, having failed to outsource it, and the PCs, having declined the mission, now must stop him, and they are hot on his trail, and the adventure is 99% the same sequence until they catch up to him at the Final McGuffin.

Either he can bypass some encounters which the PCs have to resolve more directly, or there are encounters which persist after he passes them; for example, he fights his way across the Passage Blocked by Wasps, and the PCs then have to cross the same passage... sure, the cultist killed some wasps, their corpses are crunchy underfoot, but a fresh set of wasps has emerged from the nest and now blocks the PCs' passage.

 

[Riley37]

Yes, though not often in most editions of D&D. In Hero System, for instance, sure.

Interesting observations about how game design, basic assumptions, and *incentives* affect player choices.

Yeah, Hero System encourages more PC volition. I see that as a plus. Sometimes, a choice made during character generation (Code of Honor etc.) subsequently constrains choices during sessions... and that can still be great gaming, though that depends on how player choices interacted *during character creation*, for example, did the players discuss their conceptions/characterizations with each other before they each submitted final drafts to the GM.

 

[Riley37]

Most evil cultists don't go around advertising the fact. They usually lie and say they're someone reputable.

Oh, of course! The dragon-mask-seeker doesn't *introduce himself* as a Cult leader. He introduces himself as a mage doing research, or as a servant of Bahamut who wants the mask so he can take it to a temple and get it Dispelled and destroyed. (Or, perhaps, sealed in a generic wooden crate, which then gets stacked in a warehouse with many other generic wooden crates.)

So do the PCs always assume that all hooded guys in taverns are who they say they are, or do they sometimes look past the surface? Some of the posts so far include PCs actually doing some investigation. Or at least an Insight check, and/or Perception/Investigation vs. Disguise, while at the tavern.

The mission sponsor not being exactly who they say they are, or not being *only* who they say they are, is a common trope in some genres, and is almost the *default* assumption for Shadowrun games.

 

[Mephista]

So do the PCs always assume that all hooded guys in taverns are who they say they are, or do they sometimes look past the surface? Some of the posts so far include PCs actually doing some investigation. Or at least an Insight check, and/or Perception/Investigation vs. Disguise, while at the tavern.

There's too much that relies on context. Why is a shadowy figure approaching them? Is that common in the world at large? Are the PCs recognizable? Is there an adventuring guild that helps with quests? Just because they looked armed and dangerous? Any references? Name dropping? Ties to an established group renowned for hiring mercs (Lord's Alliance in Adventure League does just this). Has there been reliable set up with this kind of thing before (cloaked quest givers known for not screwing over party)?