Running a morally gray game

[delericho]

Should I be offering them more moral choices? Or is a campaign that doesn't emphasize good versus evil enough?
Should I be putting the party in more morally ambiguous situations? If so, how do I generate such situations?

It depends on the specifics of your group. I would probably try it once, and see if they bite. If they're interested, do it again; if not, don't.

The classic way to construct a morally ambiguous situation is to present them with a situation where whatever decision they make (including no decision) has both good and bad consequences, so there can be no 'right' choice. Probably the classic is: if you went back in time, should you kill the infant Hitler? On the one hand, murder; on the other, well, we know. But I do advise trying to be a little more subtle than that!

Am I subtly steering them towards 'good' when they get out of line? If so how can I avoid this?

Just... don't. Let them make their choices, and proceed without comment.

Are there settings that are more conducive to morally gray games than others?

Probably, yes. A setting that is itself rather dark is likely more conducive to shades-of-grey - something like Ravenloft, or Dark Sun. Or a somewhat political setting - Eberron can work well.

But shades-of-grey can be done, and done well, in most settings. Though I daresay trying to write a shades-of-grey Superman story might be a challenge.

 

[GMMichael]

Two words: Vampire the Masquerade.

Ok, that was three words, but: honestly, if given a poll with those three answers, I think most people would answer "b". It just sounds more interesting.

Three words: Game of Thrones.

1. Should I be offering them more moral choices? Or is a campaign that doesn't emphasize good versus evil enough?
2. Should I be putting the party in more morally ambiguous situations? If so, how do I generate such situations?
3. Am I subtly steering them towards 'good' when they get out of line? If so how can I avoid this?
4. Are there settings that are more conducive to morally gray games than others?
5. Or am I over-thinking this too much?

1. Write up three moral choices. If your PCs avoid all three, or consistently choose the evil choice, you'll know where to take the campaign.
2. The easy way to morally ambiguous is to set up choices that result in both right and wrong. Do you break the law to catch a crook? Do you donate your food that you stole in the first place?
3. They'll get out of line. The main problem with non-good parties is that they can't even trust each other. Use a good god if you must. You might try withholding XPs from PCs who fail to play their alignments, which I'm assuming will be more neutral than evil.
4. My guess is that dark settings, like Ravenloft, set up the best gray areas.
5. You're over-thinking it if your players don't want to deal with moral choices.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I prefer to run an amoral game. In my current D&D game (old-school sandbox D&D), the PCs are looking to fight monsters and get treasure in the wilderness, for whatever reason (fame, fortune, seeking ancient secrets, etc.). It doesn't really matter what their morals are, as long as they're not dicks to each other.

It works, even though we have an evil cleric who is trying to become a lich, and a good fighter who wants to stop him. It probably helps that the players were already a tight-knit group of friends, and none of us take the game too seriously.

 

[steenan]

It's probably not entirely justified, but when I read "morally grey", I expect something dull. A game where both true heroism and true villainy is discouraged, where the characters rarely if ever have moral motivations, where everybody is a cynic.

And that is the exact opposite to what I want to play.

I want to play an idealist, with strong passions. Someone who wants to do the right thing. Who sometimes heroically succeeds and makes things better - and sometimes goes too far, or makes some stupid decisions. Maybe I realize that what I did was wrong and learn from my mistakes. Maybe I'll be crushed and transformed through pain. And maybe I'll become worse than the evil lord I wanted to destroy.
Leave it in my hands. Ask me hard questions and let me answer them. Just don't force me, a priori, to be white. Or black. Or grey.


As an example, a handful of most fun characters I played:
1. A pacifist scientist who abhorred violent conflict, but later broke all his rules to revenge his murdered fiancee (and nearly got himself killed in the process). Only after that, gradually, he understood that not the fight itself is important, but what you fight for. And ended up significantly changing the world for good, in a way that neither his passive research nor his violent passion could.
2. A mage that joined the party simply to spy on them for his guild. But he didn't predict how fighting with them side by side will affect him. He fell in love with the paladin, shared his secrets with her and joined her in her efforts to reform her church.
3. A young prophet, a "chosen one", on his way to unify humanity. He had no idea (but I, the player, knew) that most of what shaped his beliefs was a result of demonic manipulation. And he had to face the truth - when he already inspired people to follow him. Is it better to live by a lie and try to make something good of it, or tell the people who abandoned their homes to follow you "I was wrong all the time"?

None of them was fully good, nor fully evil. But they weren't grey either. They were full of contrasts, not shades; driven to change, not to walk the middle path. Where does it fall on the spectrum?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am running a game where the characters aren't the "good guys". They aren't sociopaths either. I am running it in a medival setting where the nobles have all the power and rights, and the ordinary guy doesn't have much. This is important for such a game, a strong setting. The players need to know the boundries of what's acceptable or not, and what they should hide, or try to avoid.

The amusing thing here, is that one of the characters has a claim to a little village, but it's kinda old, and there is a new ruler. They discovered that he was involved in weapon smugling for a mercenary band that wants to take over the barony (and the neighbouring one). They don't have any good proof though. They were going to tell the baron about the smuggling, but the knight of the aforementioned village extrapolated what was happening, and confronted them on the road.

The morally ambigous situation? Well, they killed him, subverted one of his men and burried the rest in the woods. They are still going to tell the baron about the smugling mercenaries.

So.... Strong personal reasons for the PC's to act, but not to tell the whole story and just do what's best for them.

 

[Derren]

In my experience it, forcing a morally gray game only leads to disaster.

Instead of presenting the players with obvious gray choices and forcing them to pick one, it is better to build the world without good and evil in mind and let the players decide how to play in it. They can go all idealistic if they want, but they have to decide for themselves what is good in the world and what is not as unlike the usual D&D world there is nothing which tells them that. But do not go out of your way to subvert all their, in their eyes, good and heroic actions. Just use the most logical conclusion, nothing more, nothing less.

A good advice is to get your inspiration not from novels and movies, including Game of Thrones and the other things recommended so far. Entertainment products will always boil down to a Good vs. Evil setting. Take your inspiration from history and spend some time to research the event(s) you use for it (it worked for Game of Thrones which is basically a renamed War of the Roses).

 

[Dioltach]

I'd love to play a "morally grey" (or even darker) game. The trouble is that my players see anything like that as licence to backstab each other, steal things and generally be disruptive. In fact, they act like that even when they're supposed to be heroes.

 

[the Jester]

One good way to throw moral greyness into startling relief very early is to make the pcs decide what to do, once they've slain the kobolds and cleared their lair, with the kobold women and children.

If the group is into that sort of thing, I'd also recommend a lot of politicking. There's no reason the party's home country and its biggest rival can't both be good places that are constantly at war.

Don't be afraid to use good adversaries for the pcs, but don't overdo it.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I thought I would update this thread to say that I think I have figured out how to run a satisfying 'morally gray game', at least for our group. The solution is very simple: make the good guys... not very good. And make the bad guys somewhat sympathetic.

In other words, the Mighty Empire preserves humanity and keeps the ravening hoards at bay, but also oppresses its own people. The orc lord does terrible things to outlying villages, but he does them because his people were once oppressed by the empire.

My players have elaborated that they don't want to be out-and-out evil, backstabbing bastards, but they have all taken backgrounds that align them in some way with the underworld. So basically we have a group of outcasts and outlaws taking on a corrupt empire. I can live with that.

 

[Yora]

To me, the most simple soultion is to simply not use character alignment. Just tell the players they are free to do whatever they think seem apropriate in their situation and don't make opponents who burn orphanages and eat babies for the evulz. That's really all you need to do.