Real world good Vs Story good???

[Glyfair]

I think it's fear of being screwed over by the GM that makes players do this. There is a train of thought that says that if you give the GM anything, he'll just use it to screw you over somehow. So, I see endless lines of orphan PC's, Men With No Names, no ties to anything that could be held over them, over and over again.

Indeed, this is about training your players. When they take that story hook character (either through background or within play) then don't use them against the players at every turn. Instead, make them a resource that saves the day on a regular basis. Make them positive things.

Unfortunately, most DMs can't resist. They see the story possibilities in threatening the parents of a PC and ignore what that teaches the players. They can't stick to even a straightforward "rescue the princess" adventure because that's "boring and old hat." Instead every princess is a trap of some sort (the true villain in disguise, etc.). In fact, I think the opposite has happened and the cliche is now the princess who really isn't who she seems to be.

 

[FireLance]

Anyway, this seems as good an occasion as any to quote some stuff I once wrote on the issue of choice:

Choices and Consequences
Of course, in order for the players' choices to be meaningful, different choices should also result in different outcomes. A scenario in which the same outcome takes place regardless of the choices made by the players is seldom well-received as it means that their choices were largely irrelevant. The consequences of certain choices (in particular, those made in combat or during the straight application of mechanical sub-systems) are enforced by the game rules. As for the rest, it is essentially up to the DM to ensure that the players' choices matter.

Ideally, the consequences should be a reasonable outcome of the choices (barring complications such as incomplete or incorrect information - see next section). Of course, the key problem is that different people can sometimes have very different ideas of what is reasonable. One person's clever solution that should succeed can be another person's abhorrent scheme that ought to fail. When this happens to people on different sides of the DM screen, the DM may find himself either wondering why the players don't take the obvious approach, or aghast that the players are prepared to do something that he never thought they would. The consequences of a choice can sometimes seem overly harsh to the players, and can be a source of player-DM conflict. Because of this ambiguity, a DM should be particularly careful when using game-ending consequences such as character death.

Choice and Information
Player choice can sometimes be hampered though a lack of information, either because the DM has inadvertently or deliberately left out important information, the latter because finding the relevant information is supposed to be part of the challenge. In situations where the players may make choices without knowing all the relevant information, a DM who doesn't want the game to end abruptly should avoid using game-ending consequences, or ensure that the players get sufficient feedback before the consequence happens. This is for pretty much the same reason that a game of Hangman doesn't end after just one letter is guessed incorrectly, and why the game of Twenty Questions is not called One Guess.​

So, in my opinion, before a DM decides to smack down his players for having made the wrong choice in his game, he should ask himself the following questions:

1. Has he inadvertently left out any pertinent information which might have caused the players to make a different choice?
This is particularly important since the DM is in charge of the information flow in the game. The players might feel aggrieved if information which should have been obvious to the characters (but not the players) was withheld from them.

2. Would the consequences of the players' choice seem reasonable to them?
If it seems likely that the players will regret the outcome of their choice when it becomes clear to them, it may be worthwhile for the DM to devise some way for them to reverse or mitigate the effects of their choice. This could turn what would otherwise be a negative experience for both the players and the DM into a more positive one.​

 

[fuzzlewump]

Wait ... are you telling me that there should be moral ambiguity in the world even if the PCs ignore it? And that the world shouldn't be black and white even if the PCs are? But if the DM doesn't make the world react to the PCs in a black and white fashion, how will the players ever learn that acting in a black and white fashion is wrong? Or something like that.

A world that is always the foil to the players, be it in their ethical views or to their combat abilities (a fire based party only going up against things with fire resistance) is a silly place indeed. I don't think the characters/players have to learn anything, the situations should just play out organically. Everyone suddenly thinking the players are monsters for condemning a necromancer to death would not be organic. Now, if they had killed a child on the streets for kicks and giggles, that's a different question altogether. Even still, they will probably be contacted by some criminal organization who takes notice of their lack of morals and deems them worthy to perform hideously evil tasks.

 

[Hussar]

I cannot posrep Firelance again. Sigh. I really need to start randomly handing out bennies.

Firelance, totally agree.

If you want to have a morally ambiguous plotline come up, in order for it to ACTUALLY be ambiguous, the DM has to accept that either outcome is possible. If the DM has decided that one outcome is right, then it's no longer ambiguous. Therefore, IMO, the DM has to accept whatever decision the players make, not punish them for making the "wrong" decision.

The DM in this case, chucked out a possible plot hook, none of the players bit onto it. They did what they were tasked to do - root out evil baddies and turn them over to their bosses. Punishing them for following orders, when it is ambiguous whether or not they should disobey, is not a good idea.

Ok, they turned over someone who was less than slobberingly evil. Fair enough. Now you know that the group favours the idea that they are members of this organization and that following orders ranks high on their priorities. Play on that. If you want to get into a morally ambiguous situation that is. Create a conflict between what you KNOW they will think is the right answer and their orders.

Take the Buffy example of Dawn, where the group of crusaders is sworn to destroy the Key. They very much intend to kill Dawn to prevent the opening of the gate. Put the PC's in that situation. The target is truly innocent but, they are under orders to either turn the target over to the council for almost certain death, or to kill the target themselves.

And don't punish them for following orders. It's not your place to decide what the right choice is. That's the whole point of playing morally ambiguous scenarios. Your job is to sit back and watch. Twist the knife a bit, maybe, to make them squirm, but, whichever decision they make, don't screw them for it. Don't kick them out of the organization with no hope of return if they decide to save the target (although kicking them out for a little while might not be a bad thing. ) OTOH, if they turn the target over, or do the deed themselves, then fair enough. It's morally ambiguous, the organization is not wrong. Just like the crusaders in Buffy were not wrong to want to kill Dawn. Kill Dawn and save all the universes. This is not a wrong decision.

Edit for clarity - by "you" I mean both GMforPowergamers and a more general you of you the reader. Not Firelance. Well, not specifically Firelance because he's part of the general you, but, oh hell. He doesn't need my blathering anyway.

 

[Rel]

First of all, let's not make things, or take things, so personal so this thread can continue humming along. Please.

I'm of the mind that players won't always make the same decisions I would (or predict that they will) and that's ok. I view my role as the GM to be that of making the results interesting. Not always positive and not always negative. Just always interesting.

In the situation above it could just be that the PC's view themselves as cops, not judges. They go out and apprehend the "bad guys" and turn them over to the "justice system". And whatever happens at that point is out of their control. They assume that the results are lawful and just and that's the end of it.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that mentality. It's well within the range of acceptable behaviors for PC's as far as I'm concerned. I would probably react by having others view them as rigid and dedicated to apprehending those who are wanted. Some will view that as a good thing and others will find this uncompromising attitude to be off putting or even consider them evil.

I will say that this reminds me of a soliloquy that my Paladin pulled out once: "You ever noticed that everybody wants their chance at redemption on the same day they get caught? Funny coincidence that. They could have seen the evil of their ways last week or last year. But it's always the day I show up that they suddenly want to mend their ways. Problem is that I don't have a very good imagination. It's hard for me to picture all these good deeds you're going to do in the future since you have been such a rotten bastard up to this point. I'm going to pass you up the chain of command...*unsheaths sword*"

 

[Nifft]

Maybe if the DM had MADE them attend the girl's trial, and witness/participate in her execution, it would have made a bigger impact on them. Possibly having someone ELSE argue FOR the girl (a complete stranger, even, who just took pity on her?) would show them what compassion is?

Ah ha ha, what a brilliant idea!

Have a VERY incompetent public defender, who makes things much worse, so it's clear she's getting a raw deal from the trial. Then the PCs are called up as witnesses (since they captured her -- cops involved in a drug bust often do testify, so this is "realistic", if such things matter to you). The questions they are asked are misleading or irrelevant.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

I cannot posrep Firelance again. Sigh. I really need to start randomly handing out bennies.

Covered.

 

[Salamandyr]

You know, it seems to me that one problem here is that it's not clear why the ultimate moral arbiter here should be the pc's. It seems that their role is acting as a sort of "police" for the White Council. In the real world, it's not a policeman's job to decide punishment, only investigate crimes and arrest suspects. Proper punishment is outside their jurisdiction. So we have the players, acting as police, presented with a wrongdoer, who resists arrest. So they overcome her minions, and capture her. And like cops, they turn her over to the proper legal authority. What happens to her after that isn't really their problem.

Besides, if there is a trial, there is a chance of acquittal. The White Council is made up of humans too I presume, are they uniquely immune to pleas of "youth and foolishness"? And if they are, why are the players working for them?

And at least in canon, the White Council is not completely heartless; they let Dresden live, didn't they?

Perhaps have the PC's asked by the defense attorney (or White Council equivalent) to investigate and find exculpatory evidence to clear her name. Maybe it turns out there's a sinister force at work that needs her dead, and they're manipulating the White Council into doing the dirty work. So the PC's get the goods, but then the defense attorney winds up dead, so the PC's wind up having to make the defense in front of the Council. Dice are rolled, speeches get made, and then the girl is put on "probation", possibly assigned to work with the PC's.

 

[Nifft]

You know, it seems to me that one problem here is that it's not clear why the ultimate moral arbiter here should be the pc's.

Because the PCs are the protagonists. All interesting conflict must happen to them -- conflict that doesn't involve the PCs is pretty much defined as "not interesting".

That said, the players might not be interested in having a moral conflict. If they're not, the DM could lose their interest by forcing one upon them.

But if they are interested, then IMHO the most interesting kind of moral quandary is the one where everyone is trying to do the right thing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

But here I am told that not all good guys think that way.

Correct. The players have their own PCs - they aren't playing Harry or Murphy, so you should not expect them to behave like those characters. Remeber, if you are creating morally ambiguous situations, you should expect that PCs may also be morally ambiguous.

So what do you all think? Should the good guy give the person the chance to redeem themselves? Should the good guy think ‘well happens’ and just be fine? Should a good aligned paladin (knight of the cross) be such a jaded veteran that this young girls death doesn’t effect him?

Yes to any of the above. The best you can hope for as a GM is that the players have their PCs behave somewhat consistently. If they do that, you should know what to expect and you can, on occasion, use that to create different conflicts.

Don't screw the players for not behaving as you thought they should, but you should also not hold back from their actions sometimes having less than favorable consequences. Perhaps if they develop a repuation for not being particularly compassionate, opponents will be less likely to give themselves up or release hostages and will fight to the death, since they know they have nothing to lose anyway. Maybe the PCs discover that somebody they turned over to the Council had valuable information, but its now too late, the execution has been carried out and the PCs will have to find another source.