Something I love doing in tabletop RPG's is setting difficult moral dilemmas for my players' characters. It can be a real test of how well they can stay in character, and makes the game about far more than just hitting monsters until they fall over then looting the bodies.
The only problem is that it is far too easy to go too far. By definition, a moral quandry creates internal conflict within the character. It can be really hard for the player involved to distinguish between themselves as a player, and their character. This can be either because they forget (or don't realise) that it's part of the game, and take it as a personal attack, or because they identify so strongly with the character that they struggle to separate. Kind of "RPG method acting".
I think I might have been a bit too twisted with the latest one I've done. It is a long-term homebrew campaign, and we're nearing the end of the current long and epic story arc. It's D&D 3.5, but in this homebrew world there are no magic shops. I wanted to get away from the idea that magical items could be bought as if you were just going to a particularly good gun shop. You have to find magical items as you adventure and either use them or persuade allies and sponsors to swap what you've found for more useful things.
The paladin has been mentioning for a while about how under-powered his weapons are compared to the other party members. But it was part of the plan, and at the end of the last adventure, he found a magical sword with truly impressive powers, the one weapon which could pin the Big Bad in place and destroy him. I give sentient artefact-level magical items away maybe once every ten years, so he should feel privileged, especially as it's an item that taps incredibly deeply into the lore of the world (let me know if you'd like me to post THAT story !)
However, I like to balance things in ways that are warped and amuse me (and hopefully the other players). If I've given the paladin a wonderful weapon, it's only fair that I make his life challenging in other ways. Out of character, it's a way to see if I can stretch his roleplaying skills. In character, it's just karma.
The first thing I did was that one of the other items the party had found was a golden bow with a metal rod for a string. Highly magical, but absolutely no use to any of the party. Their local sponsor asked if she could borrow it to have it investigated with a view to offering something of equal value in trade. When they went back, she told them she'd been made an offer for it that she couldn't refuse; an over-the-top cash price, backed up by very credible threats if she declined. The paladin had a total sense of humour failure over this, and instead of accepting it and working with the reality of it, ended up threatening their sponsor. This is a world where actions have consequences, but he'll discover that in due course.....
To make things really interesting, the party were then given their next piece of briefing; to meet up with King Gortig of Jakta, who is leading the war against the undead invasion and will be equipping and briefing them to go off to the Plane of Death where the Big Bad hangs out. Unfortunately, the paladin has a pre-formed opinion of King Gortig, and wrote to their overall sponsor saying that he's a murderous usurper and obviously evil (he isn't, he's just incredibly ruthless when presented with difficult choices, but his intentions are ).
It'll be interesting to see whether the player is pragmatic enough (even though his character isn't) to work out a way to accept the mission without getting into a fight with the King ! I've left open several options, which includes actually letting some of the other party members have the spotlight and handle negotiations.
But I have definitely learned a few lessons from this ! The first is that when given ethical dilemmas, some players really struggle to separate IC from OOC. It can sometimes be difficult as a GM to work out if a player is being really good at staying in character, or if they are reacting as themselves. The players who seem to have the most trouble with this kind of challenge are the min-max munchkin types who think it is possible to "win" the game.
I feel a key factor that all players need to be aware of is that some situations are deliberately designed to be frustrating or difficult for their characters. It's about balancing the game for the whole party, creating challenges that can't always be resolved by combat, and putting people in situations which stretch their roleplaying abilities and (hopefully) allow them to improve their skills.
So what do you think ? Is it too risky and disruptive to give characters the kind of moral dilemmas that make the players really think ?
................................................................................................................
P.S. The image is a screenshot of the moment in Roll20 that Sir Carlos the Paladin of Tyr dealt the death blow to Karizachan and secured ownership of the Sword of Teren.