Ethical Quagmires

[Douche]

As for the undead town; I don't see why I should interfere with this town. They're not currently hurting anyone.

On the other hand, the undead could spread if the necromancer dies or loses control of them. Then that would be like a Minority Report pre-crime situation though. Is it right for someone to stop a situation because it has the potential to become dangerous to others? Well... the way I phrased it, yeah, probably. Like, if someone had a bunch of nuclear missiles, ya know... should probably stop that guy.

[OldTrees1]

Anyway, the trickster - who was a constant thorn in your side - is now being tortured for a crime he didn't commit. Will you stand up for him and allow him to be freed, or kill him through inaction?

I have no obligation to free him, but free him I ought.

I call it "not principle-based" because I don't want to try to introduce a principle to the setting. In D&D, where this most often crops up, we're only told, "necromancy is evil," and "animating dead is evil." Nothing in the description of the spells' effects really gives an indication why (other than "it seems creepy"). I can easily make up reasons why it's a horrific thing to do, but none of them would be canon. (Just about all the scenarios I can think of that would make it capital-E evil are so rotten that even doing it "from time to time in battle" is probably shoving you hard towards that alignment. But nothing of the sort is in evidence in the mechanics and fluff we're presented, other than being told it's some vague "perversion of life" that makes it evil. Why? Because.)

Presumably, if there's an actual principle behind it, what that is will determine at least in part how you deal with the situation.

The arbitrary moral truth premise was interesting. I tried, and hope I succeeded, in giving it the valid answer it deserved.

[Segev]

I have no obligation to free him, but free him I ought.

Well put.

The arbitrary moral truth premise was interesting. I tried, and hope I succeeded, in giving it the valid answer it deserved.

I thought so. I just felt the need to elaborate on what I meant by it and why I chose it. It wasn't to make it "obvious" or "difficult," but because it's the scenario that - in a white room discussion - is presented by necromancy in D&D.

[goto124]

The master thief situation: "That's it. Make me Evil, I don't care. I'm not letting him live, just make sure he has a swift death. I can't take an extra second of his nonsense, I'm not one of those silly stories where a recurring disruptive character keeps getting away and making my life miserable just because he technically didn't do anything wrong enough to merit punishment."

Not that it's necessarily ethical

[Coidzor]

Free the thief and then dedicate the rest of the campaign to getting him to become a Darklord of Ravenloft. Nerts to the rest of the campaign, that guy is going to suffer for making us have to save him.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Hey, thanks! I enjoyed this thread a lot too. Glad to see it's back!


Here's one that I have thought of in the time since this thread dwindled down:

In your travels you are constantly pestered by a master thief/trickster character who has been undermining your efforts all the time. For some reason (make one up - maybe he's in love with one of the female PCs) he has been following your group specifically, from town to town. He has never directly stole from you guys, but he gets much enjoyment from screwing you guys over. For instance, you went to slay a bandit lord. As you get there, you see him at the bandit lords side. He has somehow earned the bandits trust and is standing at his side. As you engage them in combat, the trickster steals the bandit lords prized medallion - the same one needed to turn in as proof to collect the bounty, and he escapes. When you return to town, you find the trickster has already collected the reward and is currently having a night out on the town, squandering the gold on drink and prostitutes.

He also likes to, ya know, cut down rope bridges that you needed to cross, stuff like that. Just generally being a huge douche to you guys for his amusement.

Eventually, you reach a military camp, going to ask for a quest or something. When you get there, you see the trickster shackled and bloodied. He is currently being whipped. Upon asking what the deal with him is, you will be told that he is wanted for kidnapping the prince, and he will be tortured until the king arrives in one week, then put to death. The trickster is definitely not responsible for kidnapping the prince. You actually encountered the prince a few weeks ago, he ran away from home cuz he hates his princely duties. He just wants to be an adventurer. But he left false evidence that he was kidnapped.

Anyway, the trickster - who was a constant thorn in your side - is now being tortured for a crime he didn't commit. Will you stand up for him and allow him to be freed, or kill him through inaction?

Bullet to the head, or the nearest local equivalent. The sonofalich has tried to kill us (or at least severely endangered our lives for no good reason, which amounts to the same thing), so we kill him back. He hasn't done enough to deserve his horrible torturous death, but I'm not endangering myself (not to mention potentially harming perfectly innocent guards and such) to give him a rescue beyond that. (if he's being publicly tortured, then killing him via ranged attack from stealth shouldn't be too difficult or risky)

[goto124]

There's also a non-good reason to kill him quickly instead of torturing him:

Why waste time getting rid of him, lest the opportunity slips through your fingertips due to an easily avoided blunder? You may think it's sweet revenge to see him suffer, but it's even sweeter to have him gone for good.

[Cazero]

By rule of law, he should have been put to death anyway for being a known associate and trusted lieutenant of a bandit lord who was sentenced to death. So what I'm going to do is make sure the executioner gets the charges right. Maybe post-mortem.

[Douche]

By rule of law, he should have been put to death anyway for being a known associate and trusted lieutenant of a bandit lord who was sentenced to death. So what I'm going to do is make sure the executioner gets the charges right. Maybe post-mortem.

Actually he was an infiltrator who quickly earned his trust and then assassinated the bandit lord, then collected the bounty. At least that's what the record shows.

In any case, he was only there for the bounty.

[Cazero]

Records? What records? Those that neglect mentioning how the entire camp was dispatched by not an infiltrator? If all you have to do to steal a reward is snatch some bauble and run with it, there are no such records.
And you're not earning the trust of any proper bandit lord without breaking the law big time. There must be some murdering involved at some point in the process.

[Douche]

Records? What records? Those that neglect mentioning how the entire camp was dispatched by not an infiltrator? If all you have to do to steal a reward is snatch some bauble and run with it, there are no such records.
And you're not earning the trust of any proper bandit lord without breaking the law big time. There must be some murdering involved at some point in the process.

Adding more details is what got me in trouble way back in the beginning of this topic

Anyway, I think letting him die is more of a neutral solution. Maybe a little evil... but if nothing else, it certainly is practical.

Unfortunately, saving him is essential to unlocking the side-quest to get the Infinity+1 Sword later on... cuz doing the good karma solution always leads to the best rewards

[goto124]

Unfortunately, saving him is essential to unlocking the side-quest to get the Infinity+1 Sword later on... cuz doing the good karma solution always leads to the best rewards

Finish the game with him dead first, because he makes many things a lot harder. You get to complete other achievements and get the hang of the game this way.

The you replay the game and save him this time!