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

[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.