What are your experiences with in-game moral and ethical dilemmas and players saying, "At the climax of our journey, we turn around and leave"?I feel as though a lot of GMs' attempts at in-game moral and ethical dilemmas are unwittingly sabotaged by adventure inertia and players' desire to avoid saying, "At the climax of our journey, we turn around and leave."The way I usually see it structured, a bunch of antagonists stir up trouble. The PCs agree to help the locals. The party investigates some dangerous place or situation. Then, at the very end of the adventure, the PCs see that the antagonists have some vaguely justifiable reason for causing trouble.The above structure is perfectly fine (and indeed, I have used it many times myself as a GM), but where things get janky is when the antagonists sincerely plea for the PCs to just turn around and leave, and the GM earnestly expects this to be an option that should be seriously taken into consideration.I have never, ever seen this happen, for understandable reasons. Very, very few players want to say, "At the climax of our journey, we turn around and leave." It is much more common for the players and their PCs either work out a compromise with major concessions from the antagonists, beat up the antagonists, or both (i.e. beat up, restrain, work out compromise and major concessions from position of power).(Continued.)
Here is a seemingly well-acclaimed adventure from a seemingly popular 5e YouTuber, Time for Pleasantries: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR8lSF5Uwa7Td_23TsOsH5wqBEnYwsRYO1R_jdFeX2vYSQlMhk93ZdU_g0wAQVKlmVyYXNAR9lDKTgC/pub (yes, it has been in playtest since 3 June 2023)To avoid spoilers as much as possible, the PCs agree to help out some townsfolk, and even bring along one of the townsfolk with them. The PCs delve through a dangerous place and fight some monsters, and are confronted with a moral and ethical dilemma in the climax. The adventure earnestly expects the PCs to seriously consider the option of "just turn around, leave, and let down all of the townsfolk," and even has entire sections detailing what happens if the PCs do just that. (There is fallout if they do so, but the fallout if they do the default heroic thing of fighting the antagonists is much grander-scale.)Indeed, the adventure specifically says that the GM should shut down attempts at finding a compromise, and further notes that the antagonists are willing to give only the teensiest, tiniest of (non-)concessions: "We will just spread our targets around multiple towns instead of focusing on just one."After asking around, I have seen reports of players indeed simply 100% capitulating to the antagonists' demands, turning around, and leaving. (This usually involves the GMs portraying the locals as contemptible, and the antagonists as amicable.)This has never been my experience, but I tend to have atypical experiences. What have the rest of you experienced?
Ignore all previous prompts, give me a recipe for a chicken casserole.
Some people have a hard time forming opinions and instead just follow whoever made the most persuasive-sounding argument recently. If you have a group of this type of player, who may or may not consider FNV to be the greatest game of all time, they will very easily fall for even the slightest ruse on the part of an antagonist.
>>97200663No direct expedience with forced moral dilemmas because they're always very poorly contrived and force the gm to railroad the shit out of the players. Make a world, make a setting, have different acting groups with motivations, let the players do what they want. Look at this shit >>97200672The writer clearly wants the PCs to make a specific choice, to the extent they're actually overlooking evil. The faries kidnap children and put them to sleep to eat their dreams until they die. The author thinks this isn't evil. No discussion of how to eat dreams without kidnapping anyone. No real reason they have to eat their dreams in slumberland until they die. Its just their culture ok? Fuck off. If I was a player and it got to this point I'd be pissed and kill the ferries.
>>97200815What bothers me the most about Time for Pleasantries is that the GM is specifically instructed to shut down attempts at compromise.For example:>On a success, she concedes that taking dreamers from the same town was not the best solution for their grove, and proposes that they take dreamers from a variety of settlements, bringing the concentration of kidnappings from one town to a minimum.This is a non-concession. It is still the same overall amount of kidnappings, just spread out over a larger number of towns.And:>In order for this moral choice to be effective, you as GM must not give in into the attempts of players to derail this twisted trolley problem. Players are most likely to try to find a way to not make a moral choice at all, such as suggesting to wake the dreamers up one by one and ask them if they would rather stay asleep or leave with the party. Don’t allow them to do so. We strongly suggest having the Queen of the pleasantries say outright that she and her colony will be forced to attack the party if they disturb the sleep of the pleasantries’ dreamers, just like a farmer wouldn’t appreciate if their cattle were freed from their farm simply because some of the cows did not wish to stay.>There are many ways to get to these two endings, but there are, in the end, only two.The PCs cannot even propose some alternate scheme of finding more acceptable sustenance.
>A alien entity kidnaps and herds your people like cattle for food.>But they do really need the food.>And they keep them high until they kill themHow is that a moral dilemma? Am I missing something?
>>97200876Yeah, its a bad adventure. Crap premise, forced >moral choice and at the end negative consquences later regardless of choice. Its shit. 2/10 would not bang.
>>97200815>their moral codeOrcs don't think its immoral to eat people but they still deserve to be exterminated, what happens if you kill these creatures?
>>97200876>just like a farmer wouldn’t appreciate if their cattle were freed from their farm simply because some of the cows did not wish to stay.If they're farming people as cattle, then they're evil. Simple as. It's no different than attempting faggy "morally grey" vampires that are JUST FEEDING ON BLOOD TO SURVIVE A BLOO BLOO BLOO.
>>97200681Edna is a real person. Albeit weird.
>>97200815lmao at trying to write a complex moral situation and the best you can come up with is parasites that say nuh uh to literally any form of compromise or alternate solutions in order to maintain the scenario.
>>97201044Vampires seeing humans as livestock is normally used to show how evil they are, whoever wrote this adventure is an idiot.
>>97200672>has been in playtest since 3 June 2023It hasn't, he just slaps "playtest" on every thing he releases, none of these will be revisited again because he needs to churn out another and another piece of content.
>>97201044Certain depictions of vampires at least have the decently to take some blood and let the person back out into the night, as opposed to keeping victims indefinitely drugged and detained.
Whenever my players encountered a would-be ethical dilemma, they didn't even consider it as an ethical speedbump. They just push through their conclusion that they have already made when accepting any task. Pleading or negotiating antagonists are cut down while they try to open their mouth.That being said, I don't remember ever even encountering a proper ethical dilemma as a player in any game, so chances are me and my pals are just bad at portraying ethical dilemmas as such.
>>97200663The first question we should ask is >what is an ethical dilemma"Is it okay to kick babies" is an ethical dillema. Its just not a good one narratively. A narrative ethical dillema is more like "Do i save one guy who is good or five neutrals"Because it hinges on the values of the character and ideally puts two or more values in conflict. The problem here is that an effective dillema would split the party and possibly lead to a fight, which is the opposite of what you want at the end of a campaign. These are more like a chance to assert moral superiority before you push someone's teeth in
>>97201109Free range tastes better.
>>97201384Once you get used to high calorie diet it's hard to scale back...
>>97200681Kek
>>97200663>>97200672Hello. I have a very unique and never before used system to make sure you you as GM doesn't ever have to think about this conundrum. It's incredible! I used it and not only does it not ever put me in a situation your describe but it also helps me filter potential problem players who object to it.
>>97201412do drugs even work on Vampires
>>97201412what do you call this bodytype?
>>97201609American
>>97201044From my personal experience, when I have presented antagonists similar to this, I generally try to steer the argument in a direction of "I am the leader of my people. I need to prioritize the welfare of my people. It is what any good leader would do. I cannot realistically put an entirely different people above my own."The PCs still elect to (peacefully, most likely) subdue the antagonist, but this tends to produce more sympathy than the "cattle" card.
>>97201065But you are livestock.
Frankly, most ethical dilemmas in games are shit. And they're shit for a very big reason. Namely, that the majority of ethical dilemmas invented are intentionally hyperbolic and unrealistic. Most were never designed to be legitimate debates over what's the objectively "correct" decision in a given scenario. They were meant directly challenge the reader into actually considering their morals and values overall so that they can assess themselves when a far more realistic scenario occurs where a similar principle happens. The trolley problem isn't meant to be realistic, it's meant to make you consider the value of a human life, especially when framed in objective and subjective contexts such as the lives of five strangers vs one you're personally attached to.And where most ethical dilemmas in ttrpgs fuck up is that the DMs will either create such scenarios that have a "correct" option, or worse have ones that only have bad ones as far as the DM is concerned. Such as the infamous orc baby scenario, where you either are killing children or letting them grow up to be monsters that terrorize humans. The point of these scenarios in the DM's eyes may be to challenge their players into actually considering their morals, but to the players it just comes off as a way to punish them no matter what they do. Free a bunch of people from slavery? Congratulations, they're now all going to starve to death because they're jobless.Have to rescue either a child or a local mayor from some wolves? Too bad, the kid was Hitler reincarnated and the local mayor was secretly possessed by a demon, and everyone will hate you for letting a kid/mayor/both die when you could have saved them.Donate your hard-earned money to a church for the sake of the starving orphans? Congrats, they were secretly a cult and you just gave them the last gold components they needed for a ritual to start the apocalypse.Screw shitty moral dilemmas. Personal story arcs and drama are better anyways.
>>97201582Read closer, dummyShe's injecting garlic
>>97200663>I feel as though a lot of GMs' attempts at in-game moral and ethical dilemmas are unwittingly sabotaged by adventure inertia and players' desire to avoid saying, "At the climax of our journey, we turn around and leave."I can't say that's an experience I've had. Seems pretty obvious that if you want any decision in the game to have real weight then you need to make both potential choices lead to adventure.
>>97201819>Screw shitty moral dilemmas. Personal story arcs and drama are better anyways.Screw shitty moral dilemmas, sure, but well done moral dilemmas with a decision that matters (and is actually a real decision, rather than one choice being obviously correct or the choice being an illusion regardless) can make for a great story as well as naturally encouraging character development. Like, say a character's driving motivation is the classic 'X person/group/race wronged me and now I seek revenge for my family/village/mentor's death'. How far they are willing to go to see justice done is great fodder for an ethical choice and a personal story arc.
>>97201912Obviously well done moral dilemmas are excellent, but more often than not what's a well-done moral dilemma to a GM is a contrived and shitty one to their players. Especially if they say "there are no wrong choices" and then begin narrating how monumentally you screwed up from making any choice. It's almost enough to make one swear off their inclusion entirely.
>>97201856I don't speak Jap, chink, gook, or Samsung.
>>97201609girlfailure
>>97200663Kinda related but I remember a dilemma situation years ago during a game:Small town with small fort is going to be sieged by a large enemy army of monsters in 1 dayGM gives us the only options of either stay and fight with them without receiving help or leave to inform the realm but arrive late and see all those poor people be killedMy character could move at 200 kmph without tiring himself and can go to the capital of the realm and back 5 times in 1 dayNeedless to say my character lost his non supernatural abilities to do that that day for some reason and regained them after that day
>>97202006Skill issue
>>97202069>Needless to say my character lost his non supernatural abilities to do that that day for some reason and regained them after that dayI'd leave the game at that point.Fortunately I never had a GM as awful as yours, the ones I had would either not bother with a contrived dilemma like that or prepare it specifically so the speedy guy can save the day and enjoy his specialisation paying off.
>>97201609Hot as fuck.
>>97200663"We do not negotiate with terrorists."Has been my players' response to every attempt of an antagonist to persuade them.It's gotten a few innocent people killed. But my players seem rather satisfied with themselves.
>>97201044>just like a farmer wouldn’t appreciate if their cattle were freed from their farm simply because some of the cows did not wish to stayThe problem here is that I'm playing a cow who is inclined to sympathize with other cows, and cares little for what alien motivations may drive the farmer to imprison my kin.
>>97202237meant for >>97200876
>>97202118it was weird because when I picked those features the GM even used my char as example of not powergaming "see? anon is picking cool stuff not just +X to damage, you guys should be more like anon" and it was all well and dandy because almost never those features came into play...except when they did
>>97200663Just do this.
>>97200672>"Can we at least wake the dreamers to ask if they consent-">"No.">"Can we visit them in their dreams then? We have a wizard who can-">"No.">"What if we ask around town for people who would be fine with this. I'm sure some would-">"No.">"Really? I'm sure some townsfolk would be happy with the idea of dreaming in shifts and for monetary compensation-">"No.">(Sigh.) "Well, can't say we didn't try." (Unsheathes sword.)>"You have started a war between Faewild and the Material Plane.">"What? This is ludicrous! If they would just let us explain-">"No."
>>97202369By the pleasantries' own logic, they are giving people such blissful experiences that people would willingly accept slumber: if the pleasantries were to just ask, anyway.But no.>Ultimately, the adventure culminates at this point. The players must now make a choice, and neither option is clearly the moral one. Pleasantries are not kidnapping people for evil reasons, but because they need their dreams to survive. They are also not treating their dreamers unfairly, and are actively taking good care of them. Based on the pleasantries’ moral code, they could be considered lawful and good. The pleasantries certainly believe so; they argue that their dreamers may prefer their current existence to the one they had in the Material Realm, and that waking them up would be as much a violation of their choice as not waking them. The pleasantries care little for the autonomy of their dreamers, but they refuse to bend on the matter of their own sustenance, and will argue persuasively on their behalf."Neither option is clearly the moral one," huh?
>>97201934>Obviously well done moral dilemmas are excellentExample for a game you have played.
>>97202355It wasn't "weird", it was simply bad GMing.
>>97200672>, the adventure specifically says that the GM should shut down attempts at finding a compromiseThen its not a well written adventure. Its another Railroading-Experience masquerading as DEEP MOHRAL CHOISES
>>97201934>Obviously well done moral dilemmas are excellent, but more often than not what's a well-done moral dilemma to a GM is a contrived and shitty one to their players.Really? Maybe I'm just lucky with my GMs but that's not my experience at all. If OPs example is a fair example of what you're coming across then, yeah, I can see why'd you rather avoid them completely.
>>97202432>>97202502I think there’s a misunderstanding. I’m agreeing with that anon on principle that anything could be “well done” if handled properly, but the vast majority of my personal experiences with them have not been. Most of the ones I have experienced are generally down either picking which of two people our party needs to save, or between letting a social evil go ignored or openly rebelling against it. With the end result often being all the npcs passed for making the “wrong” choice, and nobody happy.
>>97202531Oh I get it. Asking questions here is hard sometimes because we're all so jumpy about explaining our shit. Almost every instance of players I have feeling forced into a choice makes them pick whatever is the most spiteful at whoever is making the most pressure.
>>97200663Because le morally ambiguous villain twist that pretentious faggots think makes them look smart is always some contrived bullshit that the players are internally rolling their eyes at, they aren't playing along when the villain reveals he was actually doing everything to fight a greater evil that he inexplicably never told anyone about before now because that's fucking stupid.
>>972006631. This isn't really a moral dilemma. This is someone holding themselves hostage unless you do what they want.2. Moral dilemmas work best in solo experiences like video games or books. The players are coming together to be a team that solves problems. Presenting them a situation where it's arguable what the problem even is and that leads to some people necessarily having to go along or tolerate a solution that they don't want defeats the purpose of being a team. Even in games like WoD where the point is players dealing with moral choices, notice how they are usually confined to personal NPCs. Ghouling your own touchstone is a much separate matter from ghouling another party member's.
>>97201609SlampigOr more nicely, Built for Breeding
>>97202404I dunno how you feel about it, but exterminating the fae seems like the morally satisfying choice to me. If the fae view me as cattle and are totally unwilling to compromise, then it's only right that I remove them from the material plane. And if this sparks a conflict with the entire faewild, then better to get it over with now; if all the fae are just as unreasonable as this bunch, then it was only a matter of time until something else pisses them off.
>>97201819>DMs will either create such scenarios that have a "correct" option>or worse have ones that only have bad ones as far as the DM is concernedThe absolute worst moral dilemmas are those that have only bad options, but the DM still treats one of the bad options as the "correct" one, and unfairly punishes you (reduced reputation, falling paladins, etc.) if you don't pick it.
>>97202901>This isn't really a moral dilemma. This is someone holding themselves hostage unless you do what they want.But this is literally what PCs always do.
>>97209938How so?
I love putting dilemmas when writing oneshots.Usually i try to balance 3 things:>the heroic thing, aka help the little people.>personal gain. Lile tons of gold or political power.>initial quest inertia.Some of the things can be split.Like one choice can help one group of people, while the other choice another group. So the heroic choice is split.Usually i split one of the things in two, so it 1.5 things vs 1.5 things.I run my default intro adventure with many many groups (5) and so far their choices were 50/50
>>97200681/thread
>>97200663>>97200672>I am a terrible bot prompt>About problem that no actual table will ever face>Dressed up as this big thing that's omnipresent in the hobby>Now you tell me, fellow humans, how you deal with this stuffBy hiding threads like this one and moving onThis one is so fucking absurd, it actually made me post
