Moral Complexity in Campaigns? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Moral Complexity in Campaigns?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
amanodel
Jan 22, 2009 2:28:45 I have noticed that in adventures/ campaigns written in 3rd edition, 3.5 edition, and 4th edition (as of right now), there are not many intriguing elements happening. While this is perfectly fine for some groups, I know mine is inkling for something more...

Going into a dungeon and fighting Undead because you know they are evil can be fun. It also can be in a video game*. I play DnD because it allows complex ideas with no really forced storyline. DMs are encouraged not to railroad and follow where the PCs wish to go. I applaud the creators of the game for this effort. However, currently the level of intrigue is at most find out what this evil plotter is up to.

Around Paragon (or 10-20th levels in 3.0) and Epic levels, I see this changing. There are fewer automatically evil creatures. However, I wish to find a campaign where complexity is present throughout the entire storyline - even at first level.

Are there any campaigns where this is true? I would really love for my PCs to exist in a world where monsters aren't evil - just savage. A world where there is no alignment - only common folk and fantastic creatures trying to survive.
#2
yellowdingo
Jan 22, 2009 5:53:35 The Paladin's Crusade

"And thou shalt divide all the lands of this kingdom into one square mile holdings that every family may farm..." Throw down the Monarchy and establish a Commonwealth of Equals...Equals? Theobold the Paladin felt a life time of emotion welling up in him. He had spent a decade in the Company of the King as his church appointed protector and now he would have to throw down this king he loved and his Complacent Church because his God demanded it.

DM Briefing: The Party Paladin is sent to tear down a Lawful Good Monarchy and the Church which has ingraciated itself in the Hierarchy and establish a Government that requires the direct and regular Participation of every citizen (every citizen must regularly vote on every act of Government, Law, Constitution to ensure that it is a Commonwealth founded in Consensus). His god Instructs him to Inform the Monarch that this is the New Form of Government and all must conform to it or be expelled for all time. If the Monarch does not surrender to this new Government The Paladin is authorised to use Poison to eliminate the Monarch and his Loyal Troops to ensure that no ordinary or good people are killed in a terrible conflict to achieve this by force.
#3
Neutronium_Dragon
Jan 22, 2009 7:28:39 I think the primary reason why you don't see many adventures of that type is that they are, by necessity, of rather large scope and would likely take a hardcover-sized book to do properly - and there just isn't enough of a market to support that.

The other problem is that intrigue-based adventures are much more heavily linked to the characters who will be partaking in them. Unless they use pregenerated characters, it'd be difficult to write such an adventure to accommodate the range of parties that might end up running through it.

That said, many of the adventures do at least offer hooks that you can develop on your own, and there have been a few adventures that delve into these sorts of things to a limited degree.

As a setting, Eberron is probably better-suited to this sort of thing because it's set up with both intrigue and moral ambiguity in mind - many of the 'monster' races are actually civilized (to at least some degree) and nationality generally matters more than species when you're dealing with people. (IE: A Brelish human won't like a Droaamish gnoll but he won't like a Droaamish human either, and he'll trust a Brelish gnoll far more than he trusts an Aundairan human.) Eberron 4E is due out this year, but if you want to get an early look, but 3E Eberron Campaign Setting is probably still fairly easy to find.
#4
pass_the_remote
Jan 22, 2009 20:05:00
As a setting, Eberron is probably better-suited to this sort of thing because it's set up with both intrigue and moral ambiguity in mind - many of the 'monster' races are actually civilized (to at least some degree) and nationality generally matters more than species when you're dealing with people. (IE: A Brelish human won't like a Droaamish gnoll but he won't like a Droaamish human either, and he'll trust a Brelish gnoll far more than he trusts an Aundairan human.) Eberron 4E is due out this year, but if you want to get an early look, but 3E Eberron Campaign Setting is probably still fairly easy to find.

Too true. Eberron is ideal, if you're hunting for intrigue and characters with ambiguous moral compasses. I think I should mention, however, that Eberron (as of D&D 3.5) does use the alignment system, but it uses a very loose alignment system, where monsters can be just as good as the adventurers they fight.
#5
Dreamstryder
Jan 22, 2009 22:02:45 Most of the time, it's about the session over the setting.

The key to a morally ambiguous setting has naught to do with scale and needn't be built too closely around the characters. First, go by loyalties rather than to pre-judged ideals. (4e's PHB explains Alignment as something like a chivalric code, but really, no one swears to a code named "Evil"; those are what people call them after the fact.)

The players may bear loyalty to a person (the queen), a group of people (citizens of a country, the government, the church, the family), or the teachings of one's life or religion. For example, in (Early?) Medieval Europe, a Christian knight loyal to his sovereign might sack a Christian church and fields in the next land over precisely because it belonged to a rival lord and his sovereign's competitor would have to drain his the coffers to feed the now-hungry peasants and repair the house of god. Such raids would go back and forth, and the knight has no way of paying fealty to his lord other than by the sword.

Soon some peasants, sick of having their fields burned for the umpteenth time, may start hiding by the roads and attacking any approacher resembling a knight. A group of PCs bearing loyalties of their own trying to make right in such a world aren't looking at a group of happy marshmallow villagers and one cloaked man with a sleazy mustache.

The goals of each side are multifaceted (you can support some points but reject others) and not mutually exclusive (I want what can be grown on the land; you want access to the ruins that rest on the land).
#6
wells
Jan 22, 2009 23:10:55 I don't actually use Alignment in my campaigns. You role-play your character as your character, after all they are supposed to be human-like. The have flaws et cetra, and even if someone has good intentions, they may do the wrong thing. Two clerics of Pelor will undoubtedly disagree on teachings of their, but does that make them 'evil' or any less 'good'? There are people (tyrants, servants of Bane) and creatures (demons, devils, lichs et cetra) that do want to cause violence for different reasons, but just labeling them 'Evil' and 'Chaotic Evil' doesn't cut it.

Most of my monsters also aren't 'evil'. Kobolds are just trying to make a living in their cave that they have used for generations when they go find some food in a hunting party for some deer or chipmunks. Some peasants screams 'monster' and soon the adventurers come in to sort it out. They soon realize that this is more complicated than they believed.

Alignment is just restricting. From a design stand-point, some players need a reminder that they are good, but this is a Heroic Fantasy game.
#7
Daybreaker
Jan 23, 2009 0:52:57 I think that one of the keys to presenting a good moral complexity is to base it around a conundrum that you don't feel you have the answer to.
#8
koradzi
Jan 23, 2009 20:52:53 If you're looking to introduce moral complexity into a campaign, a good thing to remember is the fact that -- even in a setting where Good and Evil are absolutes -- they're not always obvious. Good doesn't always ride a white horse, and Evil doesn't always wear a handlebar moustache.

In my opinion, though, it's ethical ambiguity that makes for a really interesting campaign -- that Law/Chaos axis, where what's right and wrong all comes down to opinion. Do your players have principles, or do the ends justify the means? Give them quests that encourage them to fight dirty, and see just how low they'll sink in pursuit of the greater good.
#9
Vatras
Jan 24, 2009 10:00:53 That is one of the reasons why I have to write most of my plots and adventures myself.
But I include always some absolute standards of good and evil, as my players sometimes want a clear line in the sand, which shows without question, which side the good guys are on.

I don't think that the old settings I am playing with are that clear on good and evil (Greyhawk and Mystara). There are many grey areas and a few clearly defined places.
In Greyhawk Iuz is evil, and so is the Horned Society (mostly), while Furyondy is good, but Urnst, the Pomarj, Zeif, the Great Kingdom, and most other countries are less clearly defined, even if they lean towards one or the other side.
In Mystara the only countries which can be seen as evil are the Broken Lands (where the orcs rule), and sometimes the Empire of Alphatia is cast as evil (although this is more from the view of a rival than a moral thing), and Hule around 1200 BC. Almost all countries have dark and light sides and factions, there is nothing like a Mordor in that world, and neither is a dark lord threatening the whole world.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 amanodel Jan 22, 2009 2:28:45	I have noticed that in adventures/ campaigns written in 3rd edition, 3.5 edition, and 4th edition (as of right now), there are not many intriguing elements happening. While this is perfectly fine for some groups, I know mine is inkling for something more... Going into a dungeon and fighting Undead because you know they are evil can be fun. It also can be in a video game*. I play DnD because it allows complex ideas with no really forced storyline. DMs are encouraged not to railroad and follow where the PCs wish to go. I applaud the creators of the game for this effort. However, currently the level of intrigue is at most find out what this evil plotter is up to. Around Paragon (or 10-20th levels in 3.0) and Epic levels, I see this changing. There are fewer automatically evil creatures. However, I wish to find a campaign where complexity is present throughout the entire storyline - even at first level. Are there any campaigns where this is true? I would really love for my PCs to exist in a world where monsters aren't evil - just savage. A world where there is no alignment - only common folk and fantastic creatures trying to survive.
#2 yellowdingo Jan 22, 2009 5:53:35	The Paladin's Crusade "And thou shalt divide all the lands of this kingdom into one square mile holdings that every family may farm..." Throw down the Monarchy and establish a Commonwealth of Equals...Equals? Theobold the Paladin felt a life time of emotion welling up in him. He had spent a decade in the Company of the King as his church appointed protector and now he would have to throw down this king he loved and his Complacent Church because his God demanded it. DM Briefing: The Party Paladin is sent to tear down a Lawful Good Monarchy and the Church which has ingraciated itself in the Hierarchy and establish a Government that requires the direct and regular Participation of every citizen (every citizen must regularly vote on every act of Government, Law, Constitution to ensure that it is a Commonwealth founded in Consensus). His god Instructs him to Inform the Monarch that this is the New Form of Government and all must conform to it or be expelled for all time. If the Monarch does not surrender to this new Government The Paladin is authorised to use Poison to eliminate the Monarch and his Loyal Troops to ensure that no ordinary or good people are killed in a terrible conflict to achieve this by force.
#3 Neutronium_Dragon Jan 22, 2009 7:28:39	I think the primary reason why you don't see many adventures of that type is that they are, by necessity, of rather large scope and would likely take a hardcover-sized book to do properly - and there just isn't enough of a market to support that. The other problem is that intrigue-based adventures are much more heavily linked to the characters who will be partaking in them. Unless they use pregenerated characters, it'd be difficult to write such an adventure to accommodate the range of parties that might end up running through it. That said, many of the adventures do at least offer hooks that you can develop on your own, and there have been a few adventures that delve into these sorts of things to a limited degree. As a setting, Eberron is probably better-suited to this sort of thing because it's set up with both intrigue and moral ambiguity in mind - many of the 'monster' races are actually civilized (to at least some degree) and nationality generally matters more than species when you're dealing with people. (IE: A Brelish human won't like a Droaamish gnoll but he won't like a Droaamish human either, and he'll trust a Brelish gnoll far more than he trusts an Aundairan human.) Eberron 4E is due out this year, but if you want to get an early look, but 3E Eberron Campaign Setting is probably still fairly easy to find.
#4 pass_the_remote Jan 22, 2009 20:05:00	As a setting, Eberron is probably better-suited to this sort of thing because it's set up with both intrigue and moral ambiguity in mind - many of the 'monster' races are actually civilized (to at least some degree) and nationality generally matters more than species when you're dealing with people. (IE: A Brelish human won't like a Droaamish gnoll but he won't like a Droaamish human either, and he'll trust a Brelish gnoll far more than he trusts an Aundairan human.) Eberron 4E is due out this year, but if you want to get an early look, but 3E Eberron Campaign Setting is probably still fairly easy to find. Too true. Eberron is ideal, if you're hunting for intrigue and characters with ambiguous moral compasses. I think I should mention, however, that Eberron (as of D&D 3.5) does use the alignment system, but it uses a very loose alignment system, where monsters can be just as good as the adventurers they fight.
#5 Dreamstryder Jan 22, 2009 22:02:45	Most of the time, it's about the session over the setting. The key to a morally ambiguous setting has naught to do with scale and needn't be built too closely around the characters. First, go by loyalties rather than to pre-judged ideals. (4e's PHB explains Alignment as something like a chivalric code, but really, no one swears to a code named "Evil"; those are what people call them after the fact.) The players may bear loyalty to a person (the queen), a group of people (citizens of a country, the government, the church, the family), or the teachings of one's life or religion. For example, in (Early?) Medieval Europe, a Christian knight loyal to his sovereign might sack a Christian church and fields in the next land over precisely because it belonged to a rival lord and his sovereign's competitor would have to drain his the coffers to feed the now-hungry peasants and repair the house of god. Such raids would go back and forth, and the knight has no way of paying fealty to his lord other than by the sword. Soon some peasants, sick of having their fields burned for the umpteenth time, may start hiding by the roads and attacking any approacher resembling a knight. A group of PCs bearing loyalties of their own trying to make right in such a world aren't looking at a group of happy marshmallow villagers and one cloaked man with a sleazy mustache. The goals of each side are multifaceted (you can support some points but reject others) and not mutually exclusive (I want what can be grown on the land; you want access to the ruins that rest on the land).
#6 wells Jan 22, 2009 23:10:55	I don't actually use Alignment in my campaigns. You role-play your character as your character, after all they are supposed to be human-like. The have flaws et cetra, and even if someone has good intentions, they may do the wrong thing. Two clerics of Pelor will undoubtedly disagree on teachings of their, but does that make them 'evil' or any less 'good'? There are people (tyrants, servants of Bane) and creatures (demons, devils, lichs et cetra) that do want to cause violence for different reasons, but just labeling them 'Evil' and 'Chaotic Evil' doesn't cut it. Most of my monsters also aren't 'evil'. Kobolds are just trying to make a living in their cave that they have used for generations when they go find some food in a hunting party for some deer or chipmunks. Some peasants screams 'monster' and soon the adventurers come in to sort it out. They soon realize that this is more complicated than they believed. Alignment is just restricting. From a design stand-point, some players need a reminder that they are good, but this is a Heroic Fantasy game.
#7 Daybreaker Jan 23, 2009 0:52:57	I think that one of the keys to presenting a good moral complexity is to base it around a conundrum that you don't feel you have the answer to.
#8 koradzi Jan 23, 2009 20:52:53	If you're looking to introduce moral complexity into a campaign, a good thing to remember is the fact that -- even in a setting where Good and Evil are absolutes -- they're not always obvious. Good doesn't always ride a white horse, and Evil doesn't always wear a handlebar moustache. In my opinion, though, it's ethical ambiguity that makes for a really interesting campaign -- that Law/Chaos axis, where what's right and wrong all comes down to opinion. Do your players have principles, or do the ends justify the means? Give them quests that encourage them to fight dirty, and see just how low they'll sink in pursuit of the greater good.
#9 Vatras Jan 24, 2009 10:00:53	That is one of the reasons why I have to write most of my plots and adventures myself. But I include always some absolute standards of good and evil, as my players sometimes want a clear line in the sand, which shows without question, which side the good guys are on. I don't think that the old settings I am playing with are that clear on good and evil (Greyhawk and Mystara). There are many grey areas and a few clearly defined places. In Greyhawk Iuz is evil, and so is the Horned Society (mostly), while Furyondy is good, but Urnst, the Pomarj, Zeif, the Great Kingdom, and most other countries are less clearly defined, even if they lean towards one or the other side. In Mystara the only countries which can be seen as evil are the Broken Lands (where the orcs rule), and sometimes the Empire of Alphatia is cast as evil (although this is more from the view of a rival than a moral thing), and Hule around 1200 BC. Almost all countries have dark and light sides and factions, there is nothing like a Mordor in that world, and neither is a dark lord threatening the whole world.