CaptainPatch wrote:^^That^^ is just plain wrong. But obviously eminently doable, because the player can do precisely that in the game. Other than making everyone flee upon sighting the party's approach, making it difficult to get info, supplies, and assistance, players CAN operate their party in just such a vicious manner, if they so desire. That's an option that I do NOT believe should be available to the players. Any organization that claims to be founded on the traditions of the Texas and Arizona Rangers shouldn't tolerate such behavior. In game terms, I would expect that such bloodthirsty Rangers-in-name-only would find themselves the frequent targets of Desert Ranger assassination teams dispatched by Ranger Center, meant to neutralize "rogue Rangers that are besmirching and disgracing the name and reputations of Desert Rangers everywhere". Sort of like having assassins from Caesar's Legion chasing you down in FNV.
Let's assume the Rangers somewhere in a desert far, far away from RC, and they find some kind of community. For some reason, this community is absolutely important to accomplish a very, very important mission. The community, however, doesn't want to cooperate.
The Rangers can't communicate with RC. They are on their own, and that is the reason why they have full authority to do what ever they believe is right to accomplish the mission. This is not a decision of RC, but a functional problem and a prerequisite to creating moral dilemmas.
That doesn't mean that actions don't backfire. Imagine the characters are sent to find a squad of Rangers who occasionally plunder villages, and that they immediately recognize that it is them who are searched. Maybe the interface allows the players to hide the traces, but maybe only one time.
Did Yoda tell Obi Wan to kill Vader? Yes, he did, and he was very excplicit about it. Did Obi Wan kill Vader? No, he didn't. Why didn't Obi Wan kill Vader? He was his former student and friend. When he faced him, he was on his own, and he simply couldn't kill him. Did Obi Wan act morally right or did he act morally wrong? Pretty hard to judge at the first instance: Vader survived and was responsible for death of thousands and thousands of people. In so far, Obi Wan is responsible for deaths of all these people, and to the degree that this is a bad thing, it was a morally wrong decision. From this point of view, Obi Wan's decision not to kill Vader is totally selfish: he couldn't do the job because he couldn't get rid of his personal feelings. He severly wounded and physically transformed him into a different creature, but Vader survived, making Obi Wan personally responsible for any single action that was taken by Vader. Luckily, in the final Episode, it turned out that Vader was the only one who could kill the Emperor. And this simple fact shows that Yoda was wrong (in fact, he was wrong very often, but that is a different point), while Obi Wan was right. Nevertheless, Obi Wan's decision and its consequences remain in moral "grey": noone, I say, would wholeheartedly agree that sacrificing thousands or millions of people in order to get rid of the Emperor was justified. It would be moral zone of grey because in a certain perspective, it was justified, while those who died never consented to be sacrificed in order to get rid of the Emperor. It is this assumption of power that results in Obi Wan's burden and guilt. But on the other hand, it turned out that his decision was not merely selfish, he acted in accordance with his feelings. In the end, it turned out that he did the right thing, but he had to pay a high price.
Basically, that is my understanding of a moral dilemma.
If the developers intention is to allow the players TOTAL freedom to have their characters do whatever they damn well please -- murder, steal, rape, et al -- then the developers should NOT apply a character background of that of a pointedly Good Guy organization.
I don't believe the devs will introduce an option to rape NPC...
Everyone has precisely this freedom. However, in our everyday lives, we can't control the outcome of such actions. To act morally good, the player needs to have the alternative to act morally bad. Otherwise, this distinction would be pointless. The devs are not responsible for actions taken by the players. Rather, the players are fully responsible for the actions of their characters.