Acceptable behaviour

[jack]

Suppose Viking raiders have been terrorising your coast. A few Vikings have previously settled here and become accepted. You know one noble in the capital city is a Viking, but this is generally unknown, and you suspect him to have *some* nefarious purposes.

However, you have some dealings with him, partly because he's rich and powerful, and partly to find out more about him, and he hires you to assassinate the leader of a band of Vikings who have settled in the nearby countryside.

However the leader is still a boy, just old enough to go into battle, but young enough you don't feel right about holding him culpable. Killing non-resident Vikings is generally regarded as a good thing, but you don't know if this specific band has been raiding anyone, or just settled there.

Do you:

(a) Find out if they have been raiding, and if so feel no compunction about one more regrettable but necessary death?
(b) Go ahead with the assassination anyway, them being here is problem enough
(c) Talk to the boy, find out if he's as malicious as Vikings in the country generally are, or if he might find allegiance with this country.
(d) Refuse to assassinate a boy whatever the circumstances, and try to expose the secret Viking noble who instigated it?
(e) Refuse to cooperate with the noble in any way, cooperating with an evil enemy is wrong even if the specific cause is valid in itself.

(The metaphor I'm seeking is Viking <=> DnD Dragon. And "leader of band" with "30-ft-long and breathes fire". Dragons are invariably but not in this campaign necessarily evil. Killing enemies is necessary. But this young dragon could be entirely innocent, his enemy, the dragon we became embroiled with, has politicl reasons for targetting him)

Comments

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I like that Dragons are smart enough to create moral delimas like this. Most D&D monsters just get killed without much thought.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes. Though I also need to strike a balance between roleplaying, and not jumping up in the middle of a fight to shout "Hold on, we must urgently debate the nature of morality" and derail all the action (which is fun too, but sort of puts a spoke in everyone's wheel) despite playing (unsurprisingly) a character exactly like that.

So far we've been slaughtering orcs and ogres with fair abandon, but only ones that are actually doing something evil. *I* always do non-lethal damage, but it doesn't make much different in the long run. It says "lawful good" right there on our character sheets! :) And most people respect that, though we're a bit freewheeling.

I think we're *supposed* to kill the dragon, and hopefully the DM will smooth over the plot by making it actually evil, but if not my character might not be able to go along. (And as interesting as moral dilemmas are, that probably makes it unfun for everyone as any more talking would start to be too much, it's not the sort where the characters are yet well enough developed its fun just being them.)

But in any universe I have a stake in, it's never going to be that facile, even if there are things that do have to be killed.

Dragons are cool. The dragon noble is really cool, I like her an awful lot, but don't want to sell out my morality. The *last* game I was in my character was good but less virtuous, and his lover turned out to be the ancient evil lord behind half of the historic destruction on the worlds we'd visited, and plotting the final attack on him in the company of a college of wizards (including diviners) I had to warn the DM my character was going to take the other side, and was prevented just in time.

[d37373.livejournal.com]

Does anyone else know that you associate with the noble? Also, I assume from the context that you agreed to the job before finding out what it was and as such are obliged to do it but have doubts? If the noble is standing in front of me waiting for an answer, my choices are really quite limited[1].

I I have the time and nobody else knows about our deal,
F) attempt to get the boy Viking to expose the noble as a Viking.

If it works, problem solved. You might decide to lop off the boy's head anyway, depending on how he goes about the exposition (is that the right word?).

If it doesn't work, you have a better reason for lopping of the boy's head. OK, so it's a manufactured reason, but people are good at fooling themselves and it looks good to outsiders, so it's a marginally better situation.

Also, A) & C) are pretty similar.

B) is unbalanced unless paired with something like "so that I am more trusted by the noble and find out more about him". I double I'd do it though - , since you can get always do A/C (get more information) then do B anyway.

D) sounds like a good way to end a promising career in the sword-for-hire business. Also, I don't like exposing the noble without knowing their motives.

E) Is bad reasoning. Greatest good, net benefit, use what you've got, etc. If the noble is going to give you loot for doing something you would have done anyway, bonus.

[1] Notwithstanding the deafness of NPCs unless addressed directly.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Does anyone else know that you associate with the noble?

Not specifically, but when we were summoned this time we left messages with a few people saying "If we don't come back, and the next party of adventurers hired out to her don't come back either, someone might want to start worrying about the DRAGON LIVING IN YOUR CITY".

Also, I assume from the context that you agreed to the job before finding out what it was and as such are obliged to do it but have doubts?

We went along, knowing that we would be asked to do something morally questionable and that standing in front of her we'd basically have to agree to it. I think she's banking that she'll get more useful work out of us before we balk than the trouble we'll cause if we do.

We had two divergent plans (a) do what she asks and get money for it or (b) find out as much as we can and then flee and sell her out to anyone trustworthy in the city and the young dragon's father. So agreeing served both.

This character places less importance on his word compared to other points of morality than other characters I've played: if coerced into a morally questionable deal he doesn't object to getting out. But it has to be all or nothing, we've pushed the envelope a fair way, but if we betray her, we'd immediately be in a sticky situation incurring the wrath of her and her other minions whatever happens.

She probably has means of scrying on us, so musing about it and gathering information is one thing, but any actual selling out might well tip the scales on us then and there.

A & C -- yeah, I see what you mean. I was considering the difference between someone who's never done anything evil at all, and someone who's killed humans, but has been raised to think of humans as worthless and might not yet be considered fully responsible for their actions.

I included some options I wasn't considering here, but someone else might. For instance, (b), some people would say humans and chromatic dragons are incompatible, and have no compunction about executing *any* dragon. (Or feel bound by their "agreement".) For instance, (e), a paladin might not countenance working with an evil person at all for any but the most overwhelming reason, and would have refused to have anything to do with it before this point, consequences to themselves be damned.

The obvious conclusion is (1) gather information about the young dragon, if it's notably evil, problem solved (though will recur again next mission) (2) if not, refuse, and take whatever course of action most likely to get us through alive.

[d37373.livejournal.com]

This is why I don;t think I would enjoy playing a paladin. While there is a certain amount of satisfaction in acting so...smugly? Not quite the right word. Anyway, it's not enough of a challenge to come up with interesting things to do or stances to take. At least with a morbidly evil character you can do something and have everyone else wonder what you're up to.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

A paladin can be a disaster, but though I never have, it seems quite interesting. If I had been a paladin there I'd certainly have felt at liberty to play along, politic, etc, but would definitely have refused to fulfil the earlier mission.

You can still have complex choices, but (as I see it) you've decided that some things are always right and some wrong, and compromising them for apparently good reasons is always for the worst in the long run (think of MLK or Ghandi not giving an inch, either to compromise with the establishment, or violence, even when that might have seemed necessary). We might not agree, but we can be fascinated by someone having that certainty.

(Of course, it can just be an excuse to be a jerk or not think about the consequences of your actions, but I hope it isn't.)

[d37373.livejournal.com]

Whilst I'm sure that it is possible to play a paladin who has difficulty deciding what it the correct choice, my instinct is to play them like a souped-up CICCU member (I have had some bad experiences).

I guess any character can get in the way if taken to extremes.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes. That's traditional :) And *is* very annoying. One reason I hope to avoid it :) Someone sticking rigidly to an arbitrary set of rules, and not just *doing* so, but making every single you do about *that* can be quite aggravating, either in a game or real life. (Someone doing so deliberately can be quite a jerk, though many people do so out of genuine concern, which I might not enjoy per se, but appreciate.)

Although, even that *can* be interesting if you explore the morals properly, or so I imagine. How irrational can a God's commandments get before you start doubting they're for the ultimate good? Do you try to fulfil the *spirit* or the *letter* of the commandments -- both can be devout, but in different ways.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Of course, not everyone will sit down with a roleplaying manual and say "Hey, let's talk about comparative religion". Just people *I'm* likely to play with :)

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

(c)

This would then undoubtedly be followed by forging a strong, if unlikely, friendship with the boy, and eventually probably giving up my life to save him.

Extract:

The boy was buried beneath a great furskin, snoring gently in sweet slumber. I had not thought that he would look quite so young. It was a child's face I saw when I creeped round to where his head rested at an awkward angle on the ground, though his brow was furrowed, suggesting that his mind bore the burden of an adult's cares and woes.

I drew my long knife, not with the intent of hurting him, but so as to ensure his cooperation. I was otherwise undetected by the burly menfolk of his camp, and sought to keep it that way.

Getting as close as I could, I held my breath and, with a single movement, clasped my hand firmly over his mouth. His skin was soft to the touch, no trace of a beard. I held the knife in a prominent position so that he could see and understand my threat in an instant.

His eyes flicked open, eyes of a very pale, almost fragile, blue. He raised his eyebrows as he saw the knife, not in fear but in a sort of consternation, and his muscles tensed. For a moment I feared that I had misjudged him, and that he might struggle and force me to kill him there and then for my own safety.

But after a moment I felt him relax ever so slightly. "Keep quiet and still," I hissed, "or I will kill you." I said it slowly and clearly, since I did not know what sort of Norse tongue he spoke.

After a moment, his eyes showed clearly that he understood, and he nodded ever so slightly. I removed my hand from his mouth and saw his lips twitch in defiance. But he remained silent, and I began my interrogation.

Disclaimer: There was a story! I wouldn't be me if I wasn't filled with a sudden desire to write it! ;)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

ROFL. That's great, so sweet. This is why I always try to ensure characters even in hypothetical moral situations are interesting and nuanced, in case they run away with you[1] :)

[1] With one, not with you personally :)

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

With one, not with you personally :)

It's just *usually* me who runs away with it ;)

Damn you and your burrowing plot bunnies, by the way! At least I can console myself that writing this story properly would take an awful lot of proper research which I couldn't possibly hope to undertake in the next... 6 years, I hope!

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Damn you and your burrowing plot bunnies,

:-/

But *hug*. It's sweet we do this, even if we can't finish them.

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean it - I adore your burrowing plot bunnies[1] :)

It is sweet :) Though now I do want to finish it. Indeed, I figured out I could bypass the research stage by making it fantasy rather than historical. But, of course, there are other stories that should be finished first...

[1] Actually not a euphemism.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Oh, sorry, ":-/" isn't *bad*. It just indicates a moment of wry expression or double take. Somehow the burrowingness of the plot bunnies sounded... momentarily disturbing, although perfectly clear.

*hugs* Before stories might make sense. This is lovely, but may or may not be a whole story, but there's other ones that definitely are.

BTW, I saw kingdom again. I think it did work better. I didn't fall in love with it, but it was very pleasant, and lacked some of the problems of the first (admittedly exciting) episode.