Hey there!

New guy, first time posting. Have played RPGs for about 8 years now, and have been GMing a homebrew fantasy campaign for 3 years.

I have gathered a rather extensive RPG library, mainly from drivethrurpg, and hence haven't really needed to ask help through forums. Until now.

I'm looking for a source material about moral dilemmas, either on sale at drivethrpg, or an online resource. My homebrew RPG is basically a standard dnd style fantasy world. With the exception of an alignment system. My system doesn't use one. I have 3 PCs: A Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Bard

Now the players are arguing amongst themselves about whether the characters of the other players are good or evil. The Bard is often heard saying lines like "some cleric you are". And the Cleric doesn't see anything good in the actions of the Sorcerer. To be fair the Sorcerer just slayed 6 innocent NPCs that were under mind control. The players themselves are much higher level

So I want to present the players with situations where they may demonstrate their beliefs through actions, not OC words over WhatsApp. However the moral dilemmas studied in high school philosophy classes are not all that great. Dynamite and pregnant women isn't exactly what I'm looking for. ethical-dilemma-examples

In summary: I'm looking for a resource material about easy to implement moral dilemmas, to give players the chance to demonstrate their goodwill, or lack there off.

Thank You

The closest thing I've played would be Pendragon. It had a number of scenarios that challenged various passions and traits of the PCs with oppositions between passions or traits, e.g. a Christian Knight's desire to avenge the murder of his father (which could include Loyalty: Family and the trait of Vengeance) might be opposed by his Christian virtue of Forgiveness. Desire for a beautiful enchantress might oppose the traits of Lustful and Chaste or possibly Lustful and the passion of Love: Wife.

In general though, I allow and expect moral issues and quandaries to arise during play (actual examples).

• A crippled old soldier is the drunkard in a bar.. Do the PCs help him, commiserate with him, pity him, give him charity, abuse him, or just ignore him?
• A prostitute is crying and arguing with a caddish courtier who, with his friends, laugh and make fun of the woman. Do they stop the abuse and teasing or participate, do they try to reform the prostitute or walk away?
• The PC witnesses a gambler being robbed by several thieves. Does he helpf the victim, thwart the thieves, watch the scene unfold to learn how to better protect himself, makes notes on the members of a local gang to increase his knowledge of the underworld, follow the thieves to their lair, or ignore the entire incident?

What the PC does or doesn't do is decided by the player. What meaning, if any, there is to the PC's decisions and actions is decided by the people at the table.

Welcome to the board!

Actually, I'll toss you the devil's advocate's side of the issue: why bother?

Why is it so important to the players that they pigeonhole one another's characters?  Is there some overriding reason in your game setting why people need to be publicly identified as "good" or "evil?"

Part of the poison pill that is alignment or other explicit morality mechanics is that if you do set up ethical/moral dilemma tests, one or more of your players might realize it (or believe they do, which amounts to the same thing).  That could lead them to play to the test, or suspect their fellows of doing so.

Thanks for the replies and good points. The reason I'm looking for ideas about moral choices, is that we have been playing for a few years now. In that time the players have been faced with many difficult choices. And after all this time, they are starting to realize that they're characters are too different (or their characters have become too different), and they're questioning the reasons why their characters should still be in the same party. Of course the players still want to keep playing, but some of them are looking for reasons as to why their characters should still hang out together.

The idea is not to start shoehorning moral choices onto the players, but rather increase them slightly. Give the Bard a chance to show she isn't the selfish bastard that Cleric believes her to be. And the Sorcerer to show that while he is impulsive and has done actions, that looking back, were actually quite evil, he still values the lives of innocents.

So instead of me throwing them a random combat encounter like: "kill the evil mages and loot their wagon, or 3 trolls are attacking a caravan" which do have a moral component, but no real choices. Protecting a caravan from trolls is a good act, but it's also the only real choice, the other being leaving them to their fate, and there's no real reason for that.

The level of moral choices I'm looking for would be something like this: After saving the caravan you notice that the caravan is actually carrying weapons to your enemies, or the caravan is carrying something you want, so now you're actually no better then the attackers, if you take the thing by force. A little clumsy examples, but hopefully you get the idea.

Maybe a better phrasing would be that I'm looking to increase the level of moral flavor, not too much, but a bit more than I currently have.

Actually, I have an easier idea.

What you're looking to set up, in effect, are scenarios designed to show the characters why they really can get along.  But why would they necessarily have that effect?  Aren't they equally as likely to highlight the differences?  What if one or more characters react in ways opposite to your intent, or draw moral conclusions which differ from yours?  Why should my character be permanently convinced at what your character decides to do in this one instance?  What if I conclude you're just doing this to impress me, and you're just waiting until I look the other way to ...

One of the many reasons I hate alignment with a hot heavy hate is that players generally figure out very quickly that either the party or the campaign has an Expected Alignment, and then often bend over backwards to argue why their actions are in keeping with that alignment, no matter how screwy.  Sure, they were children, but orc children, so it was OK to butcher them.  Sure, we broke our word to the Queen and betrayed her to her enemies, but everyone knows she's Chaotic Evil, so that makes our actions Lawful Good!  And so on.  Some of your players may adopt that approach.  Some might find it repugnant.

You might not have alignment, but I get the impression that the choices you contemplate posing have right answers and wrong ones.  Pick the right ones, and they're right only until the next moral quandary.  Pick the wrong ones, and you're back at Square One.

So the easier idea is this: throw this back at the players.  Apologize for allowing such a disparate group to be formed in the first place (I insist myself that PCs not carry character traits that would really stick in the craw of other PCs, but that isn't any help to you now).  Suggest that they themselves come up with reasons to stick together, unless one or more of them do want to trade out characters.  And if the best they've got is to hem and haw and stare at their fingers, then ask which one of them wants to trade out, might as well get it started!

I think a solution they impose will be longer lasting than one you gimmick up, to be honest.

All actions have a means and an ends. The ends is just whatever state of affairs preferred by the individual at the time. The means will be chosen based on what the individual believes will best bring about the end. So belief is an inherent part of all decisions.

Now I know you're mainly concerned with moral beliefs. I promise you, this is relevant.

There's a lot that's been said and written about ethics and morality. But the age-old moral dilemmas all tend to boil down to the same type of choice: Principled vs Consequentialist.

The example you use about the caravan bringing weapons to the enemies fits this. Principle tells you you can't just attack them the way a ravenous band of trolls would. But the consequences of just letting them go could be far more dire to the very things the character believes.

The operative word is "could." See, the consequentialist can't arrive at a "moral" decision without referencing ordinary, non-moral beliefs on what will happen if those weapons reach the enemy. (Incidentally, this is probably exactly why they travel together. Despite their moral differences, they all mutually benefit from cooperating.) So if you want moral dilemmas, there's your formula.

One thing I'll add to make matters even trickier. It's not like moral principles were literally just handed down on stone tablets. They are the culmination of thousands of years of wisdom, of being able to see in hindsight the longer term consequences of not following the moral principles. So, as your time horizon approaches infinity, even the divide between principle and consequences evaporates. And moral dilemmas vanish right along with it.

The classic moral dilemma is whether it is OK to do a Bad Thing for a Good Reason?

You are faced with an evil Seeress who draws her prophetic and magical powers from being a virgin, you cannot kill her, for various reasons, she wants to remain a virgin. Is it OK to relieve her of her virginity against her will to make her lose her powers?

There is a prophecy that says that someone who picks up a certain object in a certain way on a certain day is destined to destroy the world. An apparent innocent performs this deed in front of the PCs and they recognise the prophecy. Is it OK to kill the innocent in order to prevent something happening in the future?

Is it OK to kill little baby orcs so they don't grow up into big bad orcs?

This is just another reason why "ONE PARTY OF HEROES TRIED AND TRUE" is a bad idea.

If their characters are too dissimilar, the party breaks up and somebody makes new characters.

Or if you have time, you run more than one session.

I really, really hate PCs welded together at the hip.

The most memorable moral dilemmas arouse naturally from play, and the players STILL sometimes argue if the actions then taken by the characters were good or evil.

Quote from: antema;876896And after all this time, they are starting to realize that they're characters are too different (or their characters have become too different), and they're questioning the reasons why their characters should still be in the same party. Of course the players still want to keep playing, but some of them are looking for reasons as to why their characters should still hang out together.

I see two reasonable, viable choices.

1) The players decide their PCs shouldn't hang out together and the group of PCs splits up. Some players may create new characters that better fit with some group.

2) The players work harder to find reasons for their PCs to hang out together.

Getting along is a two-way street. On the one hand, you need to spend some effort to find reasons for your character to not be too much of a pain in the other party members' asses. To make choices that won't cause too much of a problem for the other PCs. The other players and I, on the other hand, need to find reasons for our PCs to put up with a certain amount of friction from your PC. Not a ridiculous amount, but some amount. Just like all of us, in real life, put up with a certain amount of friction from our friends, family, and co-workers. And they on their part try (at least some of the time) not to give offense and to get along.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876899What you're looking to set up, in effect, are scenarios designed to show the characters why they really can get along.  But why would they necessarily have that effect?  Aren't they equally as likely to highlight the differences?

Excellent point. I'd go farther and say that such a scenario is far more likely to highlight the differences than to accentuate values held in common.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876899So the easier idea is this: throw this back at the players.  Apologize for allowing such a disparate group to be formed in the first place (I insist myself that PCs not carry character traits that would really stick in the craw of other PCs, but that isn't any help to you now).  Suggest that they themselves come up with reasons to stick together, unless one or more of them do want to trade out characters.  And if the best they've got is to hem and haw and stare at their fingers, then ask which one of them wants to trade out, might as well get it started!

I think a solution they impose will be longer lasting than one you gimmick up, to be honest.

Again I'd go father and say it is highly unlikely that anything except a player driven solution will resolve the issue.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876910This is just another reason why "ONE PARTY OF HEROES TRIED AND TRUE" is a bad idea.

It's not a bad idea. But it does come with certain requirements generally along the lines of the players figuring out a way for their PCs to get along and then playing their PCs in a way so they do get along.

I think the real bad idea is not "One party of heroes" but the practice of PC glow. The PCs are special so that just because a character is a PC the other characters in the world (both PCs and NPC s) should and do tolerate behaviors and moral choices from the PC that they wouldn't ever tolerate in a character absent that PC glow.

QuoteIf their characters are too dissimilar, the party breaks up and somebody makes new characters.
 
Or if you have time, you run more than one session.

Exactly. The players can either find a way to play their characters so they can all get along or they shouldn't all adventure together.

Quote from: Bren;876923Excellent point. I'd go farther and say that such a scenario is far more likely to highlight the differences than to accentuate values held in common ...

Again I'd go farther and say it is highly unlikely that anything except a player driven solution will resolve the issue ...

No argument from me, Bren, I agree with you.

I have a Character Creation pamphlet I hand out to new players.  The last two paragraphs are:

QuoteParty compatibility is a must.  A necromancer in a party of fanatical Upuaut worshipers, a thalassophobe in a nautically-oriented campaign or a compulsively lawful gentleman in a group of thieving lowlifes generally won't work.  In similar fashion, few groups need (say) three physicians.

Note: the genre is cooperative, and it is neither my job nor those of existing players to come up with schemes to motivate your character to become part of the team.  It's yours.  A handful of players have had problems with this in the past (which is why I'm mentioning it), and I expect all players to be proactive in fitting in with the party and in buying into the adventures presented.

This kinda came up in our game last night.
Last week, one PC (played by a new guy) had gone off on his own, in an undisclosed location, with no prepared spells, no food, no water... and got himself stuck in a magic circle (and a demon offering to let him out in exchange for 'three children'). He was either going to die or take the bargain.
That Player wasn't at last night's game (we suspect a tantrum over his predicament).

The rest of us had differing attitudes about the situation. None of our PCs knew the guy was  in trouble and since he's been playing with us he's been prone to doing his own thing, just going off to his secret lair and using alchemy to craft stuff.

So one Player was determined to find some in-game reason to go looking for the guy and justify finding him and saving him. He argued that we, the Players, were supposed to support each other.
The rest of us were more of the 'fuck him' persuasion. There was no in-game justification for our knowing or caring all that much about the guy's problem. (we also had meta-meta-knowledge that he'd written to the GM complaining about the situation of his PC being trapped/doomed).

Anyway, the guy got saved by the concerned Player's PC... but it did (once again) point out a division we have in the group. Some of us don't feel any particular devotion to the 'group' while others strongly feel that we should just about always be united in our goals (which feels very artificial to me).

Quote from: Ravenswing;876926I have a Character Creation pamphlet I hand out to new players.

Hey Ravenswing, I would very much like to get a copy of that pamphlet, if that's possible.

A very good resource for GM do's and don'ts is "The Game Master: A Guide to the Art and Theory of Roleplaying" But that's only for GMs. A simple guide to hand to players would surely come in handy.

Quote from: Simlasa;876930This kinda came up in our game last night.
Last week, one PC (played by a new guy) had gone off on his own, in an undisclosed location, with no prepared spells, no food, no water... and got himself stuck in a magic circle (and a demon offering to let him out in exchange for 'three children'). He was either going to die or take the bargain.
That Player wasn't at last night's game (we suspect a tantrum over his predicament).

The rest of us had differing attitudes about the situation. None of our PCs knew the guy was  in trouble and since he's been playing with us he's been prone to doing his own thing, just going off to his secret lair and using alchemy to craft stuff.

So one Player was determined to find some in-game reason to go looking for the guy and justify finding him and saving him. He argued that we, the Players, were supposed to support each other.
The rest of us were more of the 'fuck him' persuasion. There was no in-game justification for our knowing or caring all that much about the guy's problem. (we also had meta-meta-knowledge that he'd written to the GM complaining about the situation of his PC being trapped/doomed).

Anyway, the guy got saved by the concerned Player's PC... but it did (once again) point out a division we have in the group. Some of us don't feel any particular devotion to the 'group' while others strongly feel that we should just about always be united in our goals (which feels very artificial to me).

After seeing where this kind of extreme metagaming can get some PCs, I tend to join the "fuck him" side. Admittedly, I'm not sure how his PC would get into a magic circle without him being around, but if he gets there?
I'm unlikely to even give the metagame information to the other players to begin with:). So they wouldn't need to metagame or not metagame, it's my decision.
And of course, people who have played in my games know that metagaming tends to result into your situation worsening, because the NPCs will note the strange behaviour, will draw conclusions from them, and will act on those conclusions. That last part often happens when it's least appropriate for the party;).

Then again, I hate the "heroes joined at the hip" assumption almost as much as Gronan does. By all means, take in account that you've been through hell, and sometimes through Hell, with another PC! By all means, have loyalty!
But if those same people are now acting weird, get them in line, precisely because you care about them and you'd do that for a friend.

Then again, I recently realised that there's two kinds of campaigns I run. One of them results in "the story of those characters". The other one results in "the story that includes these characters". The main difference is, for the latter kind I require the PCs to kinda sorta be able to work together, while it's explicitly not a requirement for the former:D!

Quote from: Ravenswing;876926I have a Character Creation pamphlet I hand out to new players.  The last two paragraphs are:

Well they can't say you didn't warn them. That is short and to the point. Nice.

Quote from: AsenRG;876934Then again, I recently realised that there's two kinds of campaigns I run. One of them results in "the story of those characters". The other one results in "the story that includes these characters". The main difference is, for the latter kind I require the PCs to kinda sorta be able to work together, while it's explicitly not a requirement for the former:D!

That seems backwards to me.

If we are playing "the story of those characters" it makes sense to "require the PCs to kinda sorta be able to work together". (Unless the story is about the conflict between the characters. Sort of like the original Arneson campaign where two sides - Law and Chaos - were in conflict and players were affiliated with one side or the other. So "the story of those characters" is the story of the war between those characters.)

Whereas if we are playing "the story that includes these characters" dropping out, killing off, and rotating characters in and out seems like much less of a problem.

Or am I misunderstanding what you meant?