Yucky Moral Issues
Our party is investigating the dwarf city. All contact with it stopped six months ago. This means that shipments of iron and dwarven produced weapons/armor/metal products also stopped. This had the effect of dramatically raising the prices of things in the city that the party was in. As a result the party went to investigate.
The investigation began in the dwarven fortress that served as the distribution point for good produced in the city. The fortress was filled with derro and duergar and some troglodytes. After clearing this, the party proceeded down the underground road, under the mountains, to the city. They have only found duergar and derro and some signs of struggle (though a lot has been repaired and put back to normal). The party has not found any of the dwarves that used to live there.
Now, in 1st edition AD&D, which we are playing, alignment is a thing. For many character classes there are severe penalties for taking actions that are outside of your alignment. For example, a lawful good character would not hide or steal treasure from the rest of the party.
The derro and duergar have taken over the dwarven city. That means, among other things, that they have moved in. Since the city has been cleared they have moved noncombatants including spouses and children in. So this brings up the moral dilemma for the party, what to do? Is it appropriate to kill the noncombatants if we are of good alignment? On the other hand, if we release them then won't they warn the rest of the city about the party's presence?
As a DM I get tired of "we've just going to walk in, kill everything and steal all the treasure." So I try to work in opportunities for alliances, factions, colorful NPCs, and "real" situations like patrols, noncombatants, raising the alarm with consequences, etc. to make the game more interesting and challenging.

Comments
Post a Comment