Moral quandries

You have to actively choose to fall. You don't fall because you fucked up.

You have to have a good choice and a bad choice and knowingly choose the bad choice.

Unless you play with That DM.

Lead the slaves, antagonize the neighboring nations into uniting against you in war then make terror the order of the day, encouraging public violence, massacring prisoners held in your own jails, executing hundreds daily for barely perceived slights against the Revolution, marhcing tens of thousands of your able-bodied men to die at the borders while having the rest commit brutal crimes against the 90% of the nation that doesn't support your bestial ways. Bonus points if you get posthumously remembered as a hero. Extra bonus points if you faked your death so you do the same thing again elsewhere.

How do you have an "evil" moral quandry? Evil is self-interest, the consequences shouldn't matter if they don't affect you negatively, even if "good" comes from it. But even more to the point, who the fuck is evil just for the sake of being evil? Who wakes up in the morning and goes "I just wana make the world shit for everyone today, somehow this is a thing worthy of my time and effort."

Like, I understand evil traits like greed, cowardice, psychopathy, ect... but again, those are more invested in self-interest than "spreading evil". Even a psychopath or a scam artist will usually allow someone to benefit from their work if it makes it easier for them to accomplish their own goals.

It doesn't even qualify as a quandary. You can do whatever the hell you want and there will be suffering. Win-win situations are like the opposite of a quandary.

You suck at this.

You don't have enough time to do both of these.

Either you fuck the king's wife, the queen. Or chase down the king's heirs and kill them. You really hate the king.

What do?

Is that even really evil? I mean it all depends on WHY you hate the king. Maybe he's a tyrannical usurper who deserves to have his heirs killed for the good of everyone.

Whichever one gives more pleasure to the evil character in question. Is he more lecherous, or more bloodthirsty?

Again, this isn't a fucking quandary.

He's an idiot who can't think of a more compelling evil character than a Saturday morning cartoon villain who wants to be as bad as possible just because.

You have a 10% chance of saving 1000 people, or otherwise only saving 100.

Or, you can be guaranteed to save 500 people.
Which do you pick?

If evil: instead of 'save people' replace with 'cause great harm to my enemies'.

>How do you have an "evil" moral quandry?

>Hurr durr evil is just reversed good
Hello summer, my old friend
You've brought the retards here again

You are standing over the defeated and broken form of the literal source of all evil and suffering in the world. It exists as a philosophical zombie, intelligence without consciousness. It is unable to be redeemed or rehabilitated due to this state of existence as it is essentially hardcoded to always be pure evil and suffering.

However the conflict from its existence in reality is responsible for creating and sustaining the spark of life in all creatures, and without it the universe will become a dead mass of physics. All life, including the Gods and even the one you worship will die if you end it's existence.

Afterlives and alternate planes don't exist.

And it's directly responsible, not through any intermediary or secondary effect or anything but directly responsible for the death of the only thing you ever cared about when it slipped into existence at their location as it occasionally does wreaking unimaginable suffering and torment in a closed time loop that can only be collapsed and not reversed or controlled.

Anyways, do you use a two handed greatsword or do you sword and board on your journey to eventual joyless obvlivion with the rest of the universe on your quest for revenge? The correct answer is always to use a halberd with a back-up arming sword.

A truly Evil character has no moral quandries, because they are immoral or amoral to the core.

To be Evil is to be absolutely self-serving, and so any "quandary" would be a question of what most benefits the character him/herself.

>not ripping its head-analouge, intestine-analouge and dick-analouge and smashing the entire thing to a pulp using a meat-morning star jury-rigged from the thing's analouge bits
Dissapointing fellow evil scum.
But then again, I always preferred some flair in my evil

World is being invaded by legions after legions of demons, born from the mortals' evil. Some other supernatural beings go around, committing genocide, ripping souls out of people, trapping them in "cages". They insist that destroying the source of evil is the only way to defeat demons. Kill all mortals and barricade in unbreakable strongholds, and demons down there will eventually kill each other off.

Wat do

There are many types of evil. Look at any mafia movie and you can see plenty of moral quandaries for evil men. Do you take revenge for a dead comrade, even though it will cause more deaths and monetary losses? Chaotic evil can't really have problems with morality though.

I personally prefer function over form. A well operated operator operating operationally is flair enough for me, no need to get cumbersomely Gothic with your weaponry.

Dick the Queen of the evil Demons into goodness.

If it's a King, make him dress up as a Queen then see step one.

someone respectable and with power whom you serve or he is head of organization goes mad with power, but you're only one who knows this and none will believe you if tell them. You overhear him give an order that will claim hundreds if not thousands of lives and you either have to kill him with your own hands, forever to be branded as traitor even by your friends and hunted down, while he will be remembered as good person or let him proceed to kill people telling everyone "I've told you" and receive glory, titles and much more

He's equally lecherous and murderous.

Why not just kill the women?

Then obviously, he would hunt down the heirs with the queen strapped on to his chest so she bounces on his dick with every step.

>You can save 10 people who will go on to save a further 10 people each or you can save 100 people

>Hurr durr, it's a win win situation either way, it's the opposite of a quandry.

>A truly Good character has no moral quandries, because they are moral to the core.
>To be Good is to be absolutely selfless, and so any "quandary" would be a question of what most benefits the population at large.

Then it doesn't matter either way. Not a quandary.

ethical objections.

At least check the quoted post, you windowlicking retard.

Replace 'evil' with immoral or amoral, which is usually what is meant by 'evil', and you'll realize why moral quandaries for evil characters are pretty much impossible.

They're either going to apply to what little morals said character does have and, in effect, won't be any different from the moral quandaries a good character might face, or they're going to be quandaries with no moral component.

>>Hard mode: Post moral quandries for Evil characters

Your inhuman cruelty has gained you a unquestioningly loyal army and populace to rule over. However, you have conquered your immediate neighbors and need time to consolidate your gains.

With no resistance coming from abroad, the only thing you have to worry about is conspiracies within your own kingdom. The best way to defend yourself against conspiracies is to make people believe that any rebellion would outrage your subjects. How do you achieve this?

How does this involve a moral quandary? It's just a practical challenge of management.

First off, thanks for not just objecting with no justifications.

>Replace 'evil' with immoral or amoral, which is usually what is meant by 'evil'
Not necessarily. Maybe for chaotic evil, but I'd say that LE and NE characters Would have morals, even if they're not "good" ones. I would interpret Morals to be a neutral word. You can have good or evil morals.

Kill the slave owners, let the slaves run the city, and watch as they mismanage it and eventually suffer worse than at their owner's leashes.

In that case, see point 2.

Their morals can be challenged in the same way you'd challenge a good character's morals. There's no need to make a distinction between good and evil characters.

The best we might manage is to define quandaries that challenge specific moral aspects.

How about this: if you continue to be inhumanly cruel it will breed resentment. If people see your enemies as too numerous, people will stop fearing you. How do you remain evil but at the same time keep from being hated?

There is no queen/king. Demons have no ruler and constantly fight each other just because. Warboss-like chiefs of bloodlusters, magical realm Circles of Lust warring with each other to determine who's the best waifu, sad emo demons being obnoxiously sad, rarely consolidating troll demons who shitpost in meatspace, backstabbing edgy thief-demons who pretend to be mortals, intrigue-weaving malevolent jewmason demons, and so on

Still practical, not moral. Root out your enemies, convince the people that you're doing it for their good, make sure the people are sufficiently scared of being seen as sympathizing with your enemies.

See McCarthyism.

Can't you people just read some JL Mackie or Richard Joyce and stop making these shit morality threads?

...

What if you don't know who the conspirators are? Random arrests or executions? That could also breed resentment just like Senator McCarthy did.

How is this a moral question, and not just a practical question?

Nothing in the described situation makes me think the character in question would jeopardize his morals by rooting out conspirators using whatever method you might imagine.

>>Hard mode: Post moral quandries for Evil characters.
Will you help the elderly lich lady cross the road or will you push her under the doom-fueled satanic schoolbus?

Because you need to remain evil. What action can you take that will keep you from doing good but at the same time will keep you from being hated?

>Because you need to remain evil
Why is that? This sounds forced and artificial.

The alignment system is forced and artificial.

People who do some evil things aren't necessarily evil, people who do good things aren't necessarily good. Ethics and morality are subject to circumstance.

The whole making paladins fall thing is a great example of how retarded the morality system is in RPGs.

Now we are thinking.

elf slave wat do

Go back to Westeros stupid blonde girl.

Find a brown one with bigger jubblies.

Delegate your unpopular mandates to subordinates, simultaneously making them dependent on you for power while shifting the blame of the populous on them for the decisions. See Stalin for examples.

let loose in the woods
works especially well if slave's a drow or highlelf

You are afraid that your fellow paladin is on the verge of falling, but when you reach out to him he refuses to listen to you. Is it a good action to slay him to preserve his purity and prevent him from turning into a fiend of evil?

Maintain status quo. Suffering trumps death when it comes to evil.

but then the alignment system is practical, not moral

...

>Post moral quandaries for evil characters
Your divinations have revealed to you the identity of a baby who has the potential to, when they reach adulthood, bring about the end of civilization. This would cause the world to sink into a pit of of suffering and debauchery for decades. But as you journey to see for yourself this wonderful child, you see him being carried across the road by his parents. A runaway cart is headed right for them. Your magic can stop the cart, but saving a (currently) innocent baby's life is a pretty good act. What do you do?

Switch the people to the other track and you have a chaotic evil moral dilemma.

Take charge of the rebellion and enslave the people who used to be masters, along with everyone you don't like.

Can't rape them again if they are dead.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=w-HFv6Ms1lw

Can I get some really good normal moral quandries that I can toss at my players?

New DM here.

Find out what's important to your PCs and then put it in danger.

Put them in a situation where they have to sacrifice something they care about--their honor, their riches, their family, their lives--or allow something bad to happen.

Introduce it organically, and don't force it. No one wants an orc baby what do scenario.

...

Left, because Hitler fid nothing wrong and war crimes don't exist.

Nice try, Satan, but he lost, so he obviously must have done something wrong.

Sez you.

>Rule 63 Jon Snow
So what would we call a Rule 63 Jon Snow anyway? Joanna Snow?

I think it's just artistically similar.

If we were meant to think it was FemSnow she'd be wielding Longclaw.

Swerve, plebs.

>but he lost
Hah, next you'll tell me it's berenstain, not berenstein.

>Who wakes up in the morning and goes "I just wana make the world shit for everyone today, somehow this is a thing worthy of my time and effort."

Replace "everyone" with "one guy" and you've basically described Professor Zoom.

"Oh, hey, Barry, looks like you're having a good time there! Let me just go ahead and fuck that up for ya."

>You have been tasked by the mayor with killing a Skeleton, Sueseht, who has been terrorising the town for quite some time. The mayor has become so despondant that he has told you that if Sueseht isn't killed soon and the skull brought to him then he will kill everyone in the village in roder to spare them from Sueseht's rampages. The mayor has since gone into hiding.

>When you get to the save that serves as Sueseht's base you find a note written by the skeleton himself. It reads "Dear adventurers. I am sorry for the pain and destruction that I have caused the locals. From this point on I take a vow of pacifism and dedicate my life to medicine, in the hopes of atoning my sins. I await yoour judgement in the cave." He seems sincere.

>When you journey into the cave, you are faced with two skeletons, each matching the descripton of Sueseht. When questioned, one of them speaks up. "Well, as my bones got damaged in my rampages, I removed them and replaced them with others. Eventually, every single one of my bones was damaged, discarded and replaced. However, while I had no use for those bones, my followers began to repair them and assembled them into a complete form. When the last bone was added to the form, it gained sentinence and stands as the skeleton to my right. Now, make your choice, adventurers".

What do?

>When the last bone was added to the form, it gained sentinence and stands as the skeleton to my right.

"Okay, so it's a free-willed being now. But are you both Sueseht, or is only one of you Sueseht, and the other his own individual with no previous memories or experience to draw upon, except, hopefully, for speech and basic fundamental knowledge such as what amnesiacs retain?"

Consider abortion laws in the setting. On one hand, killing babies, but on the other, you'd hate to give women more rights.

One of the "Good" kingdoms, nearby to your evil keep has decided enough is enough, and has sent an army to dispose of you and your 1,000 followers.

You have also obtained a grimoire of the occult and have learnt that if you sacrifice all of your men, will turn you into a demonlord, powerful and infernal.
Do you choose to take the lives of your men, who have been loyal to you for perhaps a dozen years, giving you the the life of comfort and fascism, and damning their souls to eternal turmoil for this magic? Or will you discard the Grimoires teachings, stand tall by your loyal dogs who you owe so much, denouncing the twisted powers you have the chance for?

>Sueseht
Kek

That's just capitalism, senpai.

Your god directly orders you to kill a truly righteous man who has done no wrong. You believe your god has much more wisdom than man, but is also not infallible. You are not given a reason, you are simply told to do it.

Do you do it?

Go away, Grifith. We're not going to justify your terrible betrayal for you

"He gained my memories and personality up to the time when the last bone snapped into place. Now he has a similar personality, but we have separate memories, emotions and actions"

>an orphanage is on fire
>you're the only one who can save the orphans
>they're demon orphans

like this op?