Running a morally gray game

[Dungeoneer]

At one of my gaming group's sessions last year the topic of the 'morally ambiguous' party came up very informally and my players sounded like they were generally in favor of it. In preparation for our next adventure I decided to put together a survey using Google Forms (which is an excellent tool for this kind of thing, by the way!) to see what the players were interested in doing. One of the questions I asked was this:

Which party would you rather be a member of?

• A band of heroes dedicated to vanquishing the forces of darkness
• A crew of morally ambiguous characters who may not always do the right thing
• A gang of misfits, thieves and blackguards in it for themselves and no one else

No surprise, looks like my players are choosing 'B' almost unanimously (one wag/psychopath voted for 'C').

I wondered what advice people had for creating a campaign for a party that enjoys shades of gray? I don't think most of my games fall into a cut-and-dried good-versus-evil trope. I ran a Dark Sun campaign for a while. But generally, through all their struggles, the PCs ultimately opted for the path of good.

I wonder if I'm giving the players enough of the 'walk on the dark side' that they seem to want. Here are some questions I have about satisfying the 'shades of gray' party:

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?

Looking for any advice or thoughts from experienced GMs.


(You can check out my player survey for yourself)

 

[TarionzCousin]

First, are you using D&D alignment in this game?

Second, think of some situations where you can easily determine what the "good" thing to do would be. Now brainstorm some other options.

Stealing is an easy choice, one that computer games often include. Give the PC's the opportunity to steal valuable/useful items (not just money).

Example: have an NPC with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds who leaves it in a place where the PC's could easily get it, like a broken safe or under his bed. Resist the temptation to make this NPC evil or unlikeable; that makes it relatively easy for the PC's to justify their theft. Maybe this NPC is a retired cleric who doesn't even use the wand any more. Or maybe he helps beggar children heal their cuts and scrapes.

The important thing is to give the PC's choices and let them decide what to do.

 

[Dungeoneer]

First, are you using D&D alignment in this game?

I have always ignored alignment almost entirely. As far as I'm concerned, the characters actions are their alignment.

 

[Umbran]

I think it depends on why they answered the way they did - because they wanted to actively address moral quandries, or because they just don't want to have to bother with them.

I have met players who would just prefer to not be bound (they'd say, "screwed") by morals. The guy surrendered - do you kill him or have to honorably deal with a prisoner? Not a problem for the morally ambiguous character. Orc baby? Ha, no question! They become free to make certain tactical choices without having to worry about them.

Others want to more actively explore the moral landscape in the middle-ground, where choices are not so clear as to what's good or bad.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

We don't pay a whole lot of attention to alignment, but our group tends towards morally gray. They don't tend to take prisoners, and will likely kill them if they do, they'll usually steal anything that isn't nailed down.

My recommendation is to try to imagine how your world's NPCs are going to react to this band of powerful goons if they aren't so go at sticking with the straight and narrow. Can they be hired? Is there someone's money they won't take? Who might be able to make the most attractive offer?

Maybe there are situation where they can be bribed to give up on their mission?

If you're interested in fictional models, read Glen Cook's Black Company novels (especially the first three). Awesome stuff about morally gray mercenaries in the service of an evil empire. Should be required reading.

-rg

 

[amerigoV]

I played in one recently - it was a blast! The setting was Ptolus (but using Savage Worlds) and we were a small gang working under one of the big crime organization (the Balacazars). We did have one younger player (about 10 at the time - their parents are in the group) so we could not go full Russian Crime Syndicate, but still good stuff.

I think the finest morally ambiguous moment was our conflicts with the Surgeon - a "villain" that would surgically alter people to use the settings Chaostech. At the height of the conflict we came to an accord - we got some key information we needed and a long-term resource, he got peace from us and his precious lab back. In a typical campaign, it would have been a fight to the end since Chaostech is Bad New (tm) in that setting. Greed was good to us. Plus we had an awesome gang war with the Killravens (they lost - badly). Good times, there.

The big lesson is that the group needs a reason to be together and to work together. Our set up was perfect - small fish in a big pond trying to make something of themselves. The PCs realize that they needed each other to attain goals (and we used the 5x5 matrix thing to help drive that). Plus, once you get so far into it there is no escape - one does not just simply "quit" the Balacazars, either from their perspective or from their competition/adversaries perspective.

As GM, do not be afraid to offer up some options to the players - its easy for players to slip back into the old mold of kill everything. Get them to open up to more shady options and see where they take it.

 

[amerigoV]

Also, sometimes just running a "realistic" game will do it. High fantasy games tends to sweep under the rug ramifications of PCs actions. Even something as simple as stomping through a goblin lair. Perhaps this was just a little outpost that wasn't doing nothin' but russlin up a few chickens now and then. The PCs come in and slaughter outpost. The main goblin tribe now retaliates by attacking the town. Make sure some of the slain townsfolk are known by the PCs and that some of the townfolk blame the PCs for the bring down this woe on them.

 

[evilbob]

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.

I'd definitely ask more specific questions to your players and see what they are interested in. Circling back around to my first response, being a character that has to be "bad" to be "good" is like, so amazingly over-the-top cliched it's a good place to start. But it's a far cry from someone who is actually just a "neutral" character - one who doesn't stand for anything. Both are morally ambiguous, but the latter isn't necessarily built for good storytelling, because there's no drama - that character is actively avoiding conflict. If the character's moral conflict is driving the story - that's much more interesting.

 

[gamerprinter]

I've run a short campaign where there were specific forces of 'good' and 'evil' for the major NPCs of the setting, and both sides were extremists. That is to say, the forces of good were under a specific deity's goals to convert all non-believers for the betterment of the world (according to their point of view.) Convert or die, as how the Carolingians converted northern Europe, in their belief that non-coversion would lead to chaos and a world mired in evil. I enjoyed portraying these good guys as bad guys. Whereas the evil forces were going to enslave all free peoples for exploitation.

So the PCs and anyone not aligned with either force, fit in the morally neutral ground - more of a survive this environment if we can. Both good and evil were treated as opposition to PC point of view on all things. It worked fine.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I often run and play in campaigns set in morally Grey(hawk). Our last campaign, for example, featured a cold and calculating NE wizard who venerated Istus, Incabulos, and Nerull; an honorable, but CN(E), barbarian/warblade who was searching for a lost heirloom of his clan; and a N cleric of Skoraeus Stonebones who was actively opposing Tiamat's activities in the Yeomanry.

What made this game work so well -- and what I'd recommend doing -- is it set up a complex web of alliances amongst the characters, NPCs, organizations, and deities. In turn, each of these entities had fairly nuanced personalities and very specific goals which caused the web of alliances to remain in a constant state of flux.

Example: The wizard venerated Nerull who was allied with Tiamat who opposed the cleric who was allied with the wizard. This lead the wizard and cleric to agree to negotiate when encountering agents of Nerull, and to fight agents of Tiamat.

Example: An NPC merchant supported the PCs with information and magic items in their attempts to engage Tiamat, but actively worked to thwart their attempts to find the barbarian's lost heirloom; which the NPC merchant wanted for himself. This lead the PCs to eliminate a number of the merchant's agents (some of which were good innocent people); the merchant then rallied the locals to oppose the PCs, but found himself back in an uneasy alliance with the PCs when threatened by Tiamat.

I find when the game contains a highly complex and nuanced series of alliances, then morally grey D&D is the result.