As the title states, I'm very new and in the process of a campaign with my good friends (which helps with any issues). The only reason I volunteered to DM is so our main DM could occasionally take a break. I'm incorporating Tales of the Yawning Portal but it needs more RP. The characters are a Dudly-Doright type Paladin who will always help and save others, a hexblade Warlock with a neutral sword patron, and a fighter who was forced to be a fighter after losing his wizard abilities.
I was thinking of later forcing the party to decide between killing a good NPC ally in order to save a town or multiple towns, or saving him but meaning the death of many. The paladin's characteristics are to always save good people. Here's what I was thinking. Have the warlock dream of his patron where he receives a vague warning about the pure nature of the pally being the unintentional downfall of multiple lives and that the warlock will need to save him and make the hard decision.
Just needed some ideas to bounce off you all. And I'm always welcome for more ideas y'all used in your games to introduce more RP. Thanks for reading.
How is this choice being presented to the players? Making the players make a choice is fine, but how you do it is important. You want to make sure there's still room for the players to approach the choice with room to problem solve, so their actions actually matter.
If you are too rigid or harsh with presenting the choice, the players can feel railroaded into making it, or worse, they can feel like you're trying to punish them for something for holding a gun to this good NPC's head without anything they could've done to stop it.
As long as you account for and accept the fact that players will often do the last thing you expect, and leave room for them to do that even if it means changing the situation you prepared on the fly, then it should be fine. Context is just very important.
It sounds good. Moral choices are great and interesting game material.
What I would advise you to do is figure out how that ties into the rest of the story. Or maybe the themes of the ideas you are exploring.
I love giving players impossible choices which forces them to make a moral statement. Presenting the virtues and drawbacks of each choice, without any clear right answer. I'd take some inspiration from classic Star Trek. Those are at their best when the characters actions represent a conversation. A scenario where you are forcing them to choose between one good, noble person and dozens, if not hundreds of innocent people (but maybe aren't that great if you look closely) is great "science-fiction". However, it should be in service of a debate about morality.
You've basically codified the trolly problem here and that's interesting.
The question I have is why do you want to make the good pally do a bad thing?
Sometimes it can be interesting, but also this can backfire in a major way. Players can get real upset by this stuff and completely disengage.
Also the trolley problem is stupid.
How about something like this - the character has to choose between doing something morally wrong and failing their objective. But ONLY if they did something which would lead them to failing the objective anyway.
This could be losing a winnable combat, missing clues, not being able to solve a puzzle etc... Having them have to make a deal/compromise to get out of a TPK is a great one.
This way they have brought it upon themselves, not you deciding randomly to "punnish" them for trying to play a good character.
The moral challenge for being a good character should be that being good is *harder* than the alternative, and you will fail to achieve your objectives sometimes. Not that being good is not possible.
I think a really good example of this kind of dilemma used effectively is in the season 7 episode of Doctor Who titled A Town Called Mercy.
If you're not familiar with the show/episode, the rundown is similar:
a cyborg gunslinger threatens a town in the old west, demanding they turn over a man who has done a lot of good for the town. The main characters wander into the middle and the entire episode's plot is dependent on their choices and perspectives, which differ throughout the episode. The man the gunslinger wants dead is a doctor from another planet (no, not that one) who crash-landed there and since has helped the town in a bunch of ways since, curing cholera, giving them light with the power from his crashed ship, etc, so the people don't want to let him go. But then it comes to light that the doctor (again, not that one), back on his home planet, was a war criminal that did inhuman experiments to end a particularly violent war, in the end creating the very gunslinger now threatening the town, who it turns out is chasing him out of revenge. The doctor has a deep and profound regret for what he did in the war, and almost wants the townspeople to let him die, but the townspeople still for the most part just see a man who's done nothing but good by them, they see him as one of them, and see their town as a place for people to start a new life with a second chance. That is, those townsfolk who don't just want to throw him to the gunslinger out of fear feel that way--again, conflict. Others say that the doctor should pay for his crimes, that what he did was evil and he shouldn't just get to walk away from that regardless of what would have happened to the town without him, or any good he'd done. The episode largely concerns itself with those two ideologies pitted against each other, and much like your party, the main characters caught in the middle are one idealist who wants to help everyone, one who wants to do what is right above all, and one who is ready to pull that trolly lever and let the train run over the fewest amount of people.
The great thing about the way this is done in the narrative is that it's complexity allows for multiple right answers and multiple wrong answers depending on the player's perspectives. It doesn't have just two simple outcomes, and the open structure of the deceptively simple choice is what gives the characters the freedom needed to make a compelling narrative.
The episode is well worth a watch if you're looking for inspiration.
I was thinking of later forcing the party to decide between killing a good NPC ally in order to save a town or multiple towns, or saving him but meaning the death of many.
Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
What you are presenting is a no-win situation. It's forcing the players to do cause something that they don't want. You're presenting two possible outcomes, both of which feel like they've lost. And they do: this is a lose-lose situation.
This works in novels. It does not work in a game. In a game, the players are trying to win; you've already decided that they are going to lose. No matter which outcome they choose, they have lost.
If they believe they could have avoided both outcomes, they will be upset that they didn't.
If they realise there were only two options, and they were destined to lose in both of them, it will just make them upset with you, because you presented a lose-lose situation.
As DM, you present the challenges; but you must always leave room for the PCs to win. It's fine to have the BBEG kill off beloved NPCs. It's fine for the PCs to arrive too late somewhere to prevent a massacre. It's also fine to present them with choices, where making certain decisions may lead to NPCs dying (even if they don't realise that's what will happen) - but you don't plan out that it's definitely going to happen. What you should never do is put the PCs into an unwinnable position, and that's exactly what you're proposing here.
There is no way for the players to win here. They will only resent it.
If you just want the RP / drama of it, and if it's effectively not a player choice as such, then have the NPC themselves make the offer. They can't bring themselves to take their own life, and beg the party to do it. There's still effectively no "choice", but it's not the party's failure, just an opportunity for RP.
But be VERY ready to consider cool ideas. If someone comes up with some plan that just might work, then give them a solid chance to have it work. The fact they'd *risk* the deaths of many to save one is itself a moral dilemma, and I'd hope a party memeber might argue against it. Hell, the NPC could argue against it. Plus, it's more fun than a cutscene / quicktime event.
And the trolley problem is awesome, Garr. Fight me! :)
I was thinking of later forcing the party to decide between killing a good NPC ally in order to save a town or multiple towns, or saving him but meaning the death of many.
Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
What you are presenting is a no-win situation. It's forcing the players to do cause something that they don't want. You're presenting two possible outcomes, both of which feel like they've lost. And they do: this is a lose-lose situation.
This works in novels. It does not work in a game. In a game, the players are trying to win; you've already decided that they are going to lose. No matter which outcome they choose, they have lost.
If they believe they could have avoided both outcomes, they will be upset that they didn't.
If they realise there were only two options, and they were destined to lose in both of them, it will just make them upset with you, because you presented a lose-lose situation.
As DM, you present the challenges; but you must always leave room for the PCs to win. It's fine to have the BBEG kill off beloved NPCs. It's fine for the PCs to arrive too late somewhere to prevent a massacre. It's also fine to present them with choices, where making certain decisions may lead to NPCs dying (even if they don't realise that's what will happen) - but you don't plan out that it's definitely going to happen. What you should never do is put the PCs into an unwinnable position, and that's exactly what you're proposing here.
There is no way for the players to win here. They will only resent it.
Yes, that is what a moral conumdrum is. It's a choice that you can't win everything and that's what makes it interesting. It's not about saving everyone, it's about deciding what you think is right and wrong. Therefore, it is not even an issue between victory and defeat.
It's not the most nuanced philosophical question, but what is being asked of the players is whether is it right to murder a good man to save many lives. If the players do nothing and do not engage with the situation at all, they don't "lose". It's not like everyone is going to die if the players take no action. The players do not cause the deaths of anyone through inaction.
Deciding who lives and who dies is a fundamental part of heroic drama. It's a part of being the person who makes decisions: of being a leader. Having the power to save people also means having the power to choose who needs to be saved. It's not reasonable to wield this sort of power and not be expected to make decisions like this.
"A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you? (. . .) How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?"
I think we should have faith in our players to not assume they won't throw a temper tantrum the moment they find a problem they can't hit with a sword until it goes away.
Sanvael is 100% spot on in his comment. But I will add that the idea is not unworkable it just needs a little tweaking.
The concept of “forcing” the party to do anything is a bad place to start. The only thing you can/should be do/ doing is presenting the party with options as the story progresses and see which one they choose or… more likely… they will create a third/fourth/fifth option that you did not even think of.
It is fine to lead into/start to set the scene of this scenario but then you need to let it play out as the players choose. Example: they might choose to walk away completely, and that is fine, let them and move on.
Also I’m not a huge fan of the warlock having a warning about the pally. This could turn into a slippery slope of PC vs PC conflict.
It is not bad to set the ground work for a scenario where it seems like they are walking into a hard choice…. Just be flexible enough to allow the PCs creativity to win the day.
This can’t, and should not be, be a HARD choose this or Choose that, you don’t have any other options. Set the ground work that implies that the hard choice might be coming and then let the PC do what PC do.
I would suggest coming up with a third option, where they can save everyone involved, but at a more personal cost. Make the characters have to sacrifice something personal, like the warlock has to upset their patron, or the paladin maybe break or at least bend their vows, or the party has to do something that will set back their own efforts against the BBEG. Or they have to give up some e macguffin they’ve been chasing.
I agree with Gar Feyld that the trolley problem has been overdone. Also, binary choices aren’t as interesting. Throwing at least one more option into the mix helps make it exponentially more interesting.
And make sure that if someone wants to Kirk your Kobayashi Maru, you go with it. Be willing to reward the characters if the players find a completely different solution.
I would echo what others have said in that, some of this sounds like a poor platform to launch from.
Moral conundrums are fine, so long as the outcome isn't predetermined by the DM. This idea smacks of the illusion of choice. You are only presenting the opportunity for the party to fail, but the choice is how they fail? This doesn't begin to consider any other course of action that could be attempted or dreamt up. The DM is deciding that there is a failure, regardless of player input, and that is defined somewhat differently than "moral conundrum". The very idea that there can be *only* two choices to any outcome runs counter to the concept of allowing player choice. Its very much akin to telling someone: "you can have any color car you like, as long as it's purple".
DMs aren't given the guidance to create outcomes, they are encouraged to create obstacles and challenges. Players create solutions to those complications. DMs then adjudicate the actions that the PCs take, their success or failure, and that is how the outcome is arrived at. The soulution is not decided during the DM's planning phase. That's something else entirely.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
And make sure that if someone wants to Kirk your Kobayashi Maru, you go with it. Be willing to reward the characters if the players find a completely different solution.
I was thinking of later forcing the party to decide between killing a good NPC ally in order to save a town or multiple towns, or saving him but meaning the death of many.
Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
What you are presenting is a no-win situation. It's forcing the players to do cause something that they don't want. You're presenting two possible outcomes, both of which feel like they've lost. And they do: this is a lose-lose situation.
This works in novels. It does not work in a game. In a game, the players are trying to win; you've already decided that they are going to lose. No matter which outcome they choose, they have lost.
If they believe they could have avoided both outcomes, they will be upset that they didn't.
If they realise there were only two options, and they were destined to lose in both of them, it will just make them upset with you, because you presented a lose-lose situation.
As DM, you present the challenges; but you must always leave room for the PCs to win. It's fine to have the BBEG kill off beloved NPCs. It's fine for the PCs to arrive too late somewhere to prevent a massacre. It's also fine to present them with choices, where making certain decisions may lead to NPCs dying (even if they don't realise that's what will happen) - but you don't plan out that it's definitely going to happen. What you should never do is put the PCs into an unwinnable position, and that's exactly what you're proposing here.
There is no way for the players to win here. They will only resent it.
Yes, that is what a moral conumdrum is. It's a choice that you can't win everything and that's what makes it interesting. It's not about saving everyone, it's about deciding what you think is right and wrong. Therefore, it is not even an issue between victory and defeat.
It's not the most nuanced philosophical question, but what is being asked of the players is whether is it right to murder a good man to save many lives. If the players do nothing and do not engage with the situation at all, they don't "lose". It's not like everyone is going to die if the players take no action. The players do not cause the deaths of anyone through inaction.
Deciding who lives and who dies is a fundamental part of heroic drama. It's a part of being the person who makes decisions: of being a leader. Having the power to save people also means having the power to choose who needs to be saved. It's not reasonable to wield this sort of power and not be expected to make decisions like this.
"A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you? (. . .) How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?"
I think we should have faith in our players to not assume they won't throw a temper tantrum the moment they find a problem they can't hit with a sword until it goes away.
This works in novels, and movies.
D&D is a game. The players rightly expect that they can win. Giving them a "moral conundrum" is not the same as facing one in the real world, because the conundrum is created by the DM, and the DM has already determined: no matter what you choose, you have lost. A good game of D&D is about the players overcoming challenges to achieve their goals. The "moral conundrum" is purely an illusion of choice, because the DM has already decided that the players lose. Foisting that on players is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the game is about.
I think we should have faith in our DMs not to force players to make choices they shouldn't have to make, where there is no outcome that will be enjoyable.
I was thinking of later forcing the party to decide between killing a good NPC ally in order to save a town or multiple towns, or saving him but meaning the death of many.
Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
What you are presenting is a no-win situation. It's forcing the players to do cause something that they don't want. You're presenting two possible outcomes, both of which feel like they've lost. And they do: this is a lose-lose situation.
This works in novels. It does not work in a game. In a game, the players are trying to win; you've already decided that they are going to lose. No matter which outcome they choose, they have lost.
If they believe they could have avoided both outcomes, they will be upset that they didn't.
If they realise there were only two options, and they were destined to lose in both of them, it will just make them upset with you, because you presented a lose-lose situation.
As DM, you present the challenges; but you must always leave room for the PCs to win. It's fine to have the BBEG kill off beloved NPCs. It's fine for the PCs to arrive too late somewhere to prevent a massacre. It's also fine to present them with choices, where making certain decisions may lead to NPCs dying (even if they don't realise that's what will happen) - but you don't plan out that it's definitely going to happen. What you should never do is put the PCs into an unwinnable position, and that's exactly what you're proposing here.
There is no way for the players to win here. They will only resent it.
Yes, that is what a moral conumdrum is. It's a choice that you can't win everything and that's what makes it interesting. It's not about saving everyone, it's about deciding what you think is right and wrong. Therefore, it is not even an issue between victory and defeat.
It's not the most nuanced philosophical question, but what is being asked of the players is whether is it right to murder a good man to save many lives. If the players do nothing and do not engage with the situation at all, they don't "lose". It's not like everyone is going to die if the players take no action. The players do not cause the deaths of anyone through inaction.
Deciding who lives and who dies is a fundamental part of heroic drama. It's a part of being the person who makes decisions: of being a leader. Having the power to save people also means having the power to choose who needs to be saved. It's not reasonable to wield this sort of power and not be expected to make decisions like this.
"A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you? (. . .) How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?"
I think we should have faith in our players to not assume they won't throw a temper tantrum the moment they find a problem they can't hit with a sword until it goes away.
This works in novels, and movies.
D&D is a game. The players rightly expect that they can win. Giving them a "moral conundrum" is not the same as facing one in the real world, because the conundrum is created by the DM, and the DM has already determined: no matter what you choose, you have lost. A good game of D&D is about the players overcoming challenges to achieve their goals. The "moral conundrum" is purely an illusion of choice, because the DM has already decided that the players lose. Foisting that on players is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the game is about.
I think we should have faith in our DMs not to force players to make choices they shouldn't have to make, where there is no outcome that will be enjoyable.
I mean, I use it to great success in games. I have friends who keep being like "Hey, remember that time we played the game with the two towns? I wonder what happened to those towns? We should go back and revisit them." That was absolutely a no-win scenario and my players loved it. Because it was an interesting moral dilmena about clones and identity and was like an episode of classic Star Trek.
You say that the players can't win, but that's not how players react to a situation like that in my experience. Not being able to get everything isn't a fail state. They're going to arrive at an outcome and then rationalise that it was the right thing to do and they made the best of a bad situation. Either they are going to be proud that they didn't murder an innocent man because it was convenient, or that they did the hard thing and saved hundreds of people. Partially, because that's how human psychology works. If what you were saying, players showing up as a siege and valiantly helping to turn the tide of battle against the aggressors would be tainted by the fact that they couldn't win by saving everyone. Have you even considered that it might be a relief for players to learn that someone was going to die regardless? Presumably, your way would have the players knowing that the deaths were entirely the result of their actions. Which I think, if your players were upset that someone had to die, that knowing that people died because they weren't good enough or smart enough to save them might have an even strong effect on their pysche. Consequentially, we can frame the opening scenario not as choosing who is to die, but rather who to save? The players can walk away from that decision knowing that their choices did not condemn an innocent man or saved some others from death.
You presume it wouldn't be enjoyable. I have experience to the contrary. You suggest affording players the opportunity to fail. I suggest offering them a meaningful choice. Your method is a test to see if they can roll high enough. Mine is soliciting their views on right and wrong. I know which I would enjoy more.
Thank you everyone for replying. I'll rework it and make it way more open to multiple possibilities. This was good info.
The one thing I'm confident about is our group doesn't get easily offended or upset on a lot. But giving them the freedom to cause or not cause something is good to think about.
Again, thank you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As the title states, I'm very new and in the process of a campaign with my good friends (which helps with any issues). The only reason I volunteered to DM is so our main DM could occasionally take a break. I'm incorporating Tales of the Yawning Portal but it needs more RP. The characters are a Dudly-Doright type Paladin who will always help and save others, a hexblade Warlock with a neutral sword patron, and a fighter who was forced to be a fighter after losing his wizard abilities.
I was thinking of later forcing the party to decide between killing a good NPC ally in order to save a town or multiple towns, or saving him but meaning the death of many. The paladin's characteristics are to always save good people. Here's what I was thinking. Have the warlock dream of his patron where he receives a vague warning about the pure nature of the pally being the unintentional downfall of multiple lives and that the warlock will need to save him and make the hard decision.
Just needed some ideas to bounce off you all. And I'm always welcome for more ideas y'all used in your games to introduce more RP. Thanks for reading.
How is this choice being presented to the players? Making the players make a choice is fine, but how you do it is important. You want to make sure there's still room for the players to approach the choice with room to problem solve, so their actions actually matter.
If you are too rigid or harsh with presenting the choice, the players can feel railroaded into making it, or worse, they can feel like you're trying to punish them for something for holding a gun to this good NPC's head without anything they could've done to stop it.
As long as you account for and accept the fact that players will often do the last thing you expect, and leave room for them to do that even if it means changing the situation you prepared on the fly, then it should be fine. Context is just very important.
It sounds good. Moral choices are great and interesting game material.
What I would advise you to do is figure out how that ties into the rest of the story. Or maybe the themes of the ideas you are exploring.
I love giving players impossible choices which forces them to make a moral statement. Presenting the virtues and drawbacks of each choice, without any clear right answer. I'd take some inspiration from classic Star Trek. Those are at their best when the characters actions represent a conversation. A scenario where you are forcing them to choose between one good, noble person and dozens, if not hundreds of innocent people (but maybe aren't that great if you look closely) is great "science-fiction". However, it should be in service of a debate about morality.
You've basically codified the trolly problem here and that's interesting.
The question I have is why do you want to make the good pally do a bad thing?
Sometimes it can be interesting, but also this can backfire in a major way. Players can get real upset by this stuff and completely disengage.
Also the trolley problem is stupid.
How about something like this - the character has to choose between doing something morally wrong and failing their objective. But ONLY if they did something which would lead them to failing the objective anyway.
This could be losing a winnable combat, missing clues, not being able to solve a puzzle etc... Having them have to make a deal/compromise to get out of a TPK is a great one.
This way they have brought it upon themselves, not you deciding randomly to "punnish" them for trying to play a good character.
The moral challenge for being a good character should be that being good is *harder* than the alternative, and you will fail to achieve your objectives sometimes. Not that being good is not possible.
I think a really good example of this kind of dilemma used effectively is in the season 7 episode of Doctor Who titled A Town Called Mercy.
If you're not familiar with the show/episode, the rundown is similar:
a cyborg gunslinger threatens a town in the old west, demanding they turn over a man who has done a lot of good for the town. The main characters wander into the middle and the entire episode's plot is dependent on their choices and perspectives, which differ throughout the episode. The man the gunslinger wants dead is a doctor from another planet (no, not that one) who crash-landed there and since has helped the town in a bunch of ways since, curing cholera, giving them light with the power from his crashed ship, etc, so the people don't want to let him go. But then it comes to light that the doctor (again, not that one), back on his home planet, was a war criminal that did inhuman experiments to end a particularly violent war, in the end creating the very gunslinger now threatening the town, who it turns out is chasing him out of revenge. The doctor has a deep and profound regret for what he did in the war, and almost wants the townspeople to let him die, but the townspeople still for the most part just see a man who's done nothing but good by them, they see him as one of them, and see their town as a place for people to start a new life with a second chance. That is, those townsfolk who don't just want to throw him to the gunslinger out of fear feel that way--again, conflict. Others say that the doctor should pay for his crimes, that what he did was evil and he shouldn't just get to walk away from that regardless of what would have happened to the town without him, or any good he'd done. The episode largely concerns itself with those two ideologies pitted against each other, and much like your party, the main characters caught in the middle are one idealist who wants to help everyone, one who wants to do what is right above all, and one who is ready to pull that trolly lever and let the train run over the fewest amount of people.
The great thing about the way this is done in the narrative is that it's complexity allows for multiple right answers and multiple wrong answers depending on the player's perspectives. It doesn't have just two simple outcomes, and the open structure of the deceptively simple choice is what gives the characters the freedom needed to make a compelling narrative.
The episode is well worth a watch if you're looking for inspiration.
Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
What you are presenting is a no-win situation. It's forcing the players to do cause something that they don't want. You're presenting two possible outcomes, both of which feel like they've lost. And they do: this is a lose-lose situation.
This works in novels. It does not work in a game. In a game, the players are trying to win; you've already decided that they are going to lose. No matter which outcome they choose, they have lost.
As DM, you present the challenges; but you must always leave room for the PCs to win. It's fine to have the BBEG kill off beloved NPCs. It's fine for the PCs to arrive too late somewhere to prevent a massacre. It's also fine to present them with choices, where making certain decisions may lead to NPCs dying (even if they don't realise that's what will happen) - but you don't plan out that it's definitely going to happen. What you should never do is put the PCs into an unwinnable position, and that's exactly what you're proposing here.
There is no way for the players to win here. They will only resent it.
If you just want the RP / drama of it, and if it's effectively not a player choice as such, then have the NPC themselves make the offer. They can't bring themselves to take their own life, and beg the party to do it. There's still effectively no "choice", but it's not the party's failure, just an opportunity for RP.
But be VERY ready to consider cool ideas. If someone comes up with some plan that just might work, then give them a solid chance to have it work. The fact they'd *risk* the deaths of many to save one is itself a moral dilemma, and I'd hope a party memeber might argue against it. Hell, the NPC could argue against it. Plus, it's more fun than a cutscene / quicktime event.
And the trolley problem is awesome, Garr. Fight me! :)
Yes, that is what a moral conumdrum is. It's a choice that you can't win everything and that's what makes it interesting. It's not about saving everyone, it's about deciding what you think is right and wrong. Therefore, it is not even an issue between victory and defeat.
It's not the most nuanced philosophical question, but what is being asked of the players is whether is it right to murder a good man to save many lives. If the players do nothing and do not engage with the situation at all, they don't "lose". It's not like everyone is going to die if the players take no action. The players do not cause the deaths of anyone through inaction.
Deciding who lives and who dies is a fundamental part of heroic drama. It's a part of being the person who makes decisions: of being a leader. Having the power to save people also means having the power to choose who needs to be saved. It's not reasonable to wield this sort of power and not be expected to make decisions like this.
"A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you? (. . .) How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?"
I think we should have faith in our players to not assume they won't throw a temper tantrum the moment they find a problem they can't hit with a sword until it goes away.
Sanvael is 100% spot on in his comment. But I will add that the idea is not unworkable it just needs a little tweaking.
The concept of “forcing” the party to do anything is a bad place to start. The only thing you can/should be do/ doing is presenting the party with options as the story progresses and see which one they choose or… more likely… they will create a third/fourth/fifth option that you did not even think of.
It is fine to lead into/start to set the scene of this scenario but then you need to let it play out as the players choose. Example: they might choose to walk away completely, and that is fine, let them and move on.
Also I’m not a huge fan of the warlock having a warning about the pally. This could turn into a slippery slope of PC vs PC conflict.
It is not bad to set the ground work for a scenario where it seems like they are walking into a hard choice…. Just be flexible enough to allow the PCs creativity to win the day.
This can’t, and should not be, be a HARD choose this or Choose that, you don’t have any other options. Set the ground work that implies that the hard choice might be coming and then let the PC do what PC do.
I would suggest coming up with a third option, where they can save everyone involved, but at a more personal cost. Make the characters have to sacrifice something personal, like the warlock has to upset their patron, or the paladin maybe break or at least bend their vows, or the party has to do something that will set back their own efforts against the BBEG. Or they have to give up some e macguffin they’ve been chasing.
I agree with Gar Feyld that the trolley problem has been overdone. Also, binary choices aren’t as interesting. Throwing at least one more option into the mix helps make it exponentially more interesting.
And make sure that if someone wants to Kirk your Kobayashi Maru, you go with it. Be willing to reward the characters if the players find a completely different solution.
I would echo what others have said in that, some of this sounds like a poor platform to launch from.
Moral conundrums are fine, so long as the outcome isn't predetermined by the DM. This idea smacks of the illusion of choice. You are only presenting the opportunity for the party to fail, but the choice is how they fail? This doesn't begin to consider any other course of action that could be attempted or dreamt up. The DM is deciding that there is a failure, regardless of player input, and that is defined somewhat differently than "moral conundrum". The very idea that there can be *only* two choices to any outcome runs counter to the concept of allowing player choice. Its very much akin to telling someone: "you can have any color car you like, as long as it's purple".
DMs aren't given the guidance to create outcomes, they are encouraged to create obstacles and challenges. Players create solutions to those complications. DMs then adjudicate the actions that the PCs take, their success or failure, and that is how the outcome is arrived at. The soulution is not decided during the DM's planning phase. That's something else entirely.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Amazingly put, 100%
This works in novels, and movies.
D&D is a game. The players rightly expect that they can win. Giving them a "moral conundrum" is not the same as facing one in the real world, because the conundrum is created by the DM, and the DM has already determined: no matter what you choose, you have lost. A good game of D&D is about the players overcoming challenges to achieve their goals. The "moral conundrum" is purely an illusion of choice, because the DM has already decided that the players lose. Foisting that on players is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the game is about.
I think we should have faith in our DMs not to force players to make choices they shouldn't have to make, where there is no outcome that will be enjoyable.
I mean, I use it to great success in games. I have friends who keep being like "Hey, remember that time we played the game with the two towns? I wonder what happened to those towns? We should go back and revisit them." That was absolutely a no-win scenario and my players loved it. Because it was an interesting moral dilmena about clones and identity and was like an episode of classic Star Trek.
You say that the players can't win, but that's not how players react to a situation like that in my experience. Not being able to get everything isn't a fail state. They're going to arrive at an outcome and then rationalise that it was the right thing to do and they made the best of a bad situation. Either they are going to be proud that they didn't murder an innocent man because it was convenient, or that they did the hard thing and saved hundreds of people. Partially, because that's how human psychology works. If what you were saying, players showing up as a siege and valiantly helping to turn the tide of battle against the aggressors would be tainted by the fact that they couldn't win by saving everyone. Have you even considered that it might be a relief for players to learn that someone was going to die regardless? Presumably, your way would have the players knowing that the deaths were entirely the result of their actions. Which I think, if your players were upset that someone had to die, that knowing that people died because they weren't good enough or smart enough to save them might have an even strong effect on their pysche. Consequentially, we can frame the opening scenario not as choosing who is to die, but rather who to save? The players can walk away from that decision knowing that their choices did not condemn an innocent man or saved some others from death.
You presume it wouldn't be enjoyable. I have experience to the contrary. You suggest affording players the opportunity to fail. I suggest offering them a meaningful choice. Your method is a test to see if they can roll high enough. Mine is soliciting their views on right and wrong. I know which I would enjoy more.
Thank you everyone for replying. I'll rework it and make it way more open to multiple possibilities. This was good info.
The one thing I'm confident about is our group doesn't get easily offended or upset on a lot. But giving them the freedom to cause or not cause something is good to think about.
Again, thank you