I like this idea. I hope you will play around with the concepts of absolute vs relative morality. We all know the superhero dilemma of 1 loved one vs 100 strangers. But what about tactical things that you know are wrong but in the long run have a better result. And just the reality that sometime evil just wins a battle (not the war).

As a tv junkie I must say I am intrigued by the moral dilemma's of 24. Where for the most part the end justifies the means.

As for lar_q's question: Some actions should not need explications

example: Torture , till he answers or hand him to the guards

others should be warned against with "Be warned"

example: When manipulating a race to fight with you against the forces of evil. But the race is reluctant. It would be a shame if the leader would accidentally get killed, so the minister, that is more "open" to you, would take his place. But BE WARNED: if you are caught they might join the other side.

I am really glad you are putting dilemma's in the game. But I also hope you don't have to be goody 2 shoes. Some times a bad action can have good results in the long term.


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!