Update #31: Enter the Story Zone

[Brannart]

[quote name=Hormalakh' timestamp='1353029012' post='1277777'

http://penny-arcade....story-structure

 

Wow something trashing Fall Out New Vegas and praising Fall Out 3. Blasphemy.

[Cantousent]

Anyone think upgrades may be a bit too frequent?

 

I would rather like it when they could just, well, tell us stuff. Rather than mumble stuff. Just because there need to be weekly or so updates. While there is no clear definition of stuff.

Or am I alone there?

Yes and no. I don't think the updates are too frequent but I would like it as well if they could start telling us stuff.

I know they've all their hands full and are still in early concept phase but... just something little? A smidgen of lore, some rough ideas about the Aumaua or an example of those "...various small ideas, big ideas, minor tweaks, radical overhauls, and brand new storylines." that were mentioned in this update. It's fine if it's short.

 

I already said something like this in a previous thread and it didn't go over well, but these kind of updates are just too vague for me.

Not to be a stick in the mud but I'd prefer to hear stuff about PE and not about Obsidians general design philosophy.

The way I see it is that the haven't been able to get more into the nitty-gritty of PE yet. So, the result is that they're giving us what they can, which won't satisfy folks who want more detailed information that they cannot, as yet, give. Since that's the case, you're essentially asking that they cease the interaction they can provide because you only want interaction they cannot. ...But you have a choice about reading these updates and, even if it doesn't tell you anything, it doesn't take anything from you either. On the other hand, if they follow your advice, folks like me who genuinely enjoy these updates won't get anything. ...And neither will you. So, keep pestering for more detailed information. I'm with you one hundred percent. Just try not to begrudge me the updates I enjoy reading at the same time. Just because they can't provide what everyone wants doesn't mean they shouldn't provide stuff that some folks want.

 

I'm not putting you guys down. It's more a matter of perspective. That, and I don't want them to get into spoilerish stuff. Backstory things are fair game and a certain level of story specificity are expected. I'm a grown up. I know I'm taking my chances coming here and I have to take my chances on getting something or another spoiled. I just want the to save a little something for the wedding night. So, at some point, I'm probably going to regret reading one or two updates and I can live with that. See, you're going to live with too much general info now and I'm going to live with getting some specifics I probably didn't want to know later but someone is going to get something out of each of these updates.

[Hormalakh]

[quote name=Hormalakh' timestamp='1353029012' post='1277777'

http://penny-arcade....story-structure

 

Wow something trashing Fall Out New Vegas and praising Fall Out 3. Blasphemy.

 

LOL yeah... wanted to see how many people actually watch the links I send out. It does make some pertinent points though. I'm not sure if the EC staff has actually played FO1 and 2 though, so that might be part of the reason they're actually crazy.

[CheeseGraterSuicide]

I'll just leave this here.

 

5 Very Good Reasons to Punch a Dolphin in the Mouth

[Tychoxi]

You know you are something else when your job prescription includes playing Arcanum in 2013AD.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Tychoxi

[norolim]

Nice update, again. And i don't mind it being a bit vague. What I get from those frequent updatres is that Obsidian just want to stay in touch with us, give us something to think about and comment on. Good stuff.

Edited November 16, 2012 by norolim

[Parmenides]

As long as being evil doesn't necessarily mean being a jerk. Some evil people don't mind being nice when it benefits them, or when they are likely fo find that the person return the favor down the road. High charisma and all that.

 

I enjoyed the update. I don't need candy artwork and screenshots to hold me over. It will come when it's ready.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Parmenides

[TensaiOni]

[quote name=Hormalakh' timestamp='1353029012' post='1277777'

http://penny-arcade....story-structure

Wow something trashing Fall Out New Vegas and praising Fall Out 3. Blasphemy.

 

LOL yeah... wanted to see how many people actually watch the links I send out. It does make some pertinent points though. I'm not sure if the EC staff has actually played FO1 and 2 though, so that might be part of the reason they're actually crazy.

 

I think it's just that EC have their favourite elements in game design and when a game is not doing it their favourite way (even if it's for a good reason, like in F:NV case), it's doing it wrong - in their opinion of course.

[Hormalakh]

I think it's just that EC have their favourite elements in game design and when a game is not doing it their favourite way (even if it's for a good reason, like in F:NV case), it's doing it wrong - in their opinion of course.

 

They're ultimately trying to take the genre to a new level. It's jut nobody is willing to risk that first, very risky step.

 

Edit: Oh and nobody wants to buy those kinds of games.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Thumister]

I enjoy stories that challenge preconcieved nottions about things (people, ideologies, history, etc.). As a GM, there's nothing I enjoy more than smashing my PCs preconcieved notions about a story elemet. We recently played a Babylon-5 adventure where the PCs had to infiltrate a cell of the Free Mars terrorist organization. They were expecting a bunch of rather stereotypical "crazy terrorists". Instead - I unabashedly ripped off part of the story line from Les Miserable which I knew none of them had seen and they were confronted with a bunch of disorganized college kids who saw themselves as liberators attempting to overthrow the oppressive Earthgov. Stories like Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, and The Full Metal Alchemist (which my players are all fans of) - have meant that I had to up my game as the GM and bring a lot more political intrigue to the party. When we were kids, we enjoyed smashing the orcs and piling up gold. As we've gotten older the campigns have become much more politically motivated. Smashing up orcs (or mechs) still works when we don't feel like thinking too hard. My larger point I guess, is that if you're going to make an M-rated game for people who played a lot of D&D when they were kids, I'd expect most of your older players to appreciate the political machinations more than the kids who will likely be playing the game in spite of the M rating. My players enjoy the opportunity to be heroes (or anti-heroes like Clint Eastwood). They prefer obvious moral delimmas (opportunities to behave good or evil) to moral delimmas where the outcome is ambiguous. They dislike choices between two or more equally bad outcomes (you can save the father or the mother but not both). They enjoy being able to set factions against each other. And as they've gotten older they enjoy playing weaker characters where they're awareded for more creative gameplay. One adventure, they were too weak to kill ogres digging up the graves in the graveyard so they came up with idea of bathing in whitewash, pretending to be ghosts, and attempting to scare the ogres away. That was totally not a solution I had come up with, so I gave it to them.

[Monte Carlo]

Oh ****, Sawyer has declared war on the dolphins.

 

[yog-sothot]

One thing I want to say about the universe/plot is that I'd rather have a universe where death is not trivialized. Our mortality is one of the things that defines us a humans. In a world where people know (and not just believe) that death is not the ultimate end (because there is paradise, hell, reincarnation, whatever), they do not fear it, and hence cannot act as real human beings... I know that Project Eternity will have to tackle that issue for its story and "soul" system, but I do not worry as you guys managed to do an amazing job with Torment on that matter

[Isamael]

My players [...] prefer obvious moral delimmas (opportunities to behave good or evil) to moral delimmas where the outcome is ambiguous. They dislike choices between two or more equally bad outcomes (you can save the father or the mother but not both).

 

I don't really see where this statement fits into the rest of your post which seemed to root for taking the game in mature and unexpected directions.

I for one, and the same goes for my players - prefer moral ambiguities, hard choices and adventures where their path is not laid out for them. Like yours, however, they enjoy political themes and intrigue - even opportunities to betray or trick each other. Personally, I would like to see PE step away from arbitrary notions of what is right and wrong.

Do the unexpected, play with the player's assumptions and expectations. Have far-reaching consequences that aren't immediately clear to the player.

Maybe that slave you freed takes revenge on his old master, who just happens to be an important quest NPC much later in the game. Surprise the player.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Isamael

[Keyrock]

Well, I remember in an earlier update, way back during the Kickstarter campaign, one of the devs, I forget who it was, mentioned that the game will be less about alignments and more about factions. I hope that the way the factions are written makes them a bit morally ambiguous and it's up to the player to decide which faction is right or wrong or worth supporting. Rather than just having a faction that's "Grrrrrrrr we're a a bunch of psychopaths and we slaughter innocents for fun and drink their blood" and another faction that's "We're the noble elves of the woods, keepers of the light, defenders of justice", I'd rather that there may be a way of looking at things where both factions (I'm only using 2 for example here, I hope there will be more than 2 sides to some conflicts) could be right and both sides could be wrong rather than the aforementioned clearly evil faction and clearly good faction. For example there may be a religious faction that may look saintly on the exterior but when you delve deeper there is corruption within the organization, misuse of funds, mistreatment of people, cover ups, shady dealings with less than spotless individuals and groups, and so on. Still, not everyone within the faction is corrupt, some really do mean well, and the group does provide worthwhile services to the community. There may be another faction of brigands. When you delve deeper you find that the leaders are the remnants of a family of nobles that were brutally slaughtered and chased off their lands. They are stealing from and attacking those that deposed them as revenge and just as a means of surviving. Still, innocents often wind up as collateral damage from their raids and their actions cost the kingdom in blood and money, as well as destabilizing an already precarious political situation that can send the whole kingdom into chaos. Also it seems some of them are more interested in bloodshed than justice.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Keyrock

[Isamael]

Just so, just so!

[Cantousent]

One thing I would warn against is the idea of complete and utter moral ambiguity. First of all, on practical grounds, the people in the world will have ideas of morality and ethics. Those ideas might not be right from our standards, and might not be right from the perspective of the player, but those grounds will exist. The PC's actions within that world might be an exercise of surfing the waves of moral greyness, but not every, and probably not even most, of the NPCs will see that as a good thing. Some may be susceptible to what the PC may variably feel is reason or jadedly considers persuasion, but most will have different degrees of moral certainty, from absolute to change on a dime. That's where faction comes into play. Some people of a faction will have absolute moral certainty on an issue. Hell, maybe they're right.

 

On maybe less practical grounds but still a necessary consideration, is that most players will have some idea of morality themselves. That is, most sane players will have some grounding in morals and ethics, even if they would rather not put those ideas in those terms. A charity will always stand on firmer moral ground than a group of brigands. Sure, introduce moral ambiguity by having some corrupt people in the charitable organization. Have some noble bastards in the band of brigands if it suits the story also. ...But the idea of charity is still, at its heart, better than the idea of stealing. So muck up the puddles of grey if you want, and I agree that it's good to do so, but you're going to end up just as cliched if every charity is a front for evil ends as if you'd made every charity squeaky clean and above reproach. These morally grey themes are generally (not always) played out in individuals rather than organizations. ...And, remember, sometimes a brigand is just a brigand, and his motive is to kill you, rape your wife, and take your belongings to sell for more rum.

 

Finally, there is the ultimate of practical grounds. There *will* be some degree of 'good' and 'bad' morality and ethics in the game. It will not, as a practical matter, be entirely without some amount of societal assumed morality. That's because, while we might not always know it and we might not always care, often there really is a good decision (either wise, moral, or simply practical) and even more bad decisions.

 

I'm not putting you down, Keyrock, or you, Ismael. I actually agree for the most part. I want there to be morally grey areas because otherwise good or evil (or ethical and unethical) (or decent human being or complete and utter despicable wretch) becomes completely meaningless. You're not really making any meaningful decision at all if the 'good' moral decision is readily apparent, just as lavishly rewarded in practical measures, and costs you absolutely nothing to make. The vast majority of players would probably go that route if so. I want those grey areas and I'm with you 100%. I just don't want them to dwell on the grey so much that we lose any of those finer shades of black and white.

 

In particular, I agree with Isamael in an earlier post where he doesn't want the consequences of our actions to be known right away. You do some terrible thing because your only choices are terrible things and you commit the act because you think it's the best choice in a bunch of bad. As it turns out, you did that terrible thing for nothing, maybe even worse than that, more people suffered than if you'd done nothing. Don't do it too often or you're going to royally piss off most of the players, but every now and then and it really adds a little piquancy to the experience.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Cantousent

[Keyrock]

I agree, Cantousent, not everything in the game needs to be morally ambiguous, there will be some people or groups that really are greedy or even evil while there may be some truly good groups and people. Like you, I don't want everything to be so cut and dry. I want shades of grey as well as some black and white.

[Hormalakh]

One thing I want to say about the universe/plot is that I'd rather have a universe where death is not trivialized. Our mortality is one of the things that defines us a humans. In a world where people know (and not just believe) that death is not the ultimate end (because there is paradise, hell, reincarnation, whatever), they do not fear it, and hence cannot act as real human beings... I know that Project Eternity will have to tackle that issue for its story and "soul" system, but I do not worry as you guys managed to do an amazing job with Torment on that matter

 

there is no resurrection in this game (permadeath) and healing science is poor.

[Thumister]

My players [...] prefer obvious moral delimmas (opportunities to behave good or evil) to moral delimmas where the outcome is ambiguous. They dislike choices between two or more equally bad outcomes (you can save the father or the mother but not both).

 

I don't really see where this statement fits into the rest of your post which seemed to root for taking the game in mature and unexpected directions.

 

Yah - sorry - it was late. I started to ramble there towards the end...

[RPGSeeker]

I really dislike one dimensional morality or two dimensional ethics (D&D's cardinal alignment system) as they are hollow when it comes to perspective. Take for instance, an assassin killing the founder of an empire. To the perspective of a guard within that empire, that assassination is lawless and evil, yet to the assassin killing a single man to stop the bloodshed on both sides of an entire war with a threatened nation, it was for upholding the greatest amount of order at the cost of the least amount of lives necessary to attain that cause (as ironic as a "lawful good" assassin sounds, it still qualifies as such from that perspective). One person is simultaneously "lawful and good" and "chaotic and evil" given two valid perspectives.

 

Another thing I dislike in a game is when it forces you to betray your motivations in order to advance the story line. For example: Skyrim and Jarls. To advance the game past a certain point, you either have to have pick a side in the war and take the line beyond Whiterun, or make concessions at a ceasefire negotiation. My character didn't want to enter the war, as it hurt Skyrim's populace, and preferred leaders that took care of their people rather than serving their own needs before the people. The very first concession asked for is that a good leader is replaced by someone from a family that uses killers to maintain their power hold over the town. I did not see a way around granting this concession without failing the task and then being forced into the war. Maybe I should have saved and explored every option, but I tried to just look at the dialog options and make a judgment from there. There was no option, "I don't mind you having military control of that town, but there's no way I'm going to let that family rise to power - pick someone else." In the war lines, each side has leaders that take care of the people, and the other side has some shady character they want to supplant the current leader with. I don't know if the main story can be advanced with the war story only partially complete, but that would mean that in order to not replace leaders that care for their people with self serving leaders, you would have to pick one specific side for the war, and carry it just far enough to advance the main quest line, then carry the war quest line no further. That's a lot of metagame acrobatics for trying to maintain a character that cares about the general populace, especially considering you didn't want to enter the war to begin with for that very reason. "Tough" choices are fine, but false "tough" choices (either you pick this side, and a decent leader gets supplanted with a self serving one, or you pick that side, and the same thing happens, but somewhere else) are not.

 

Using multiple "ethical" dimensions in characters like self vs other (egoist--"clan-centric"--utilitarian--altruist), conflict approach (aggressive, assertive, passive, passive-aggressive), respect for others (manipulative--indifferent--respectful), and various viewpoints on different concepts like death, trust, profit, sexuality and ownership could make for a wonderfully varied set of individuals to interact with. Far more realistic than white-grey-black. Likewise, allowing for more response options to demonstrate those themes instead of black or white, or for or against this faction, without equating any of the dimensions under a single label (like having egoist, aggressive and manipulative always lumped into the same response type and calling it "evil" would make sad pandas).

[Cantousent]

I see this sort of attitude quite a bit, Seeker, and it provides a basis for real discussion, of course, but it ignores two things. We might, as we do, argue about whether we should have morally grey areas or simply boil it all down to 'no morals exist' or even that it's all about 'various viewpoints.' Personally, I think the comment that morals are 'one dimensional' is prejudicial in the first place. Multiple causality is common in even the most ancient of literature, so the idea that morality must be confined to one dimension is erroneous. Now, to be fair, morality within one belief system tends to be an 'either/or' proposition, but no single belief system has ever existed in isolation anywhere on the planet in recorded history. If it did, it would not be questioned at any point and yet morals have always fallen under question. I don't care if folks are dead-set about avoiding the use of the term 'moral.' Sure. I guess the common replacement term of 'ethics' has shown its shortcomings as well. Likewise, fair enough. We can dump both terms in order to use the next term, whichever one you want to use, that will, in turn, show its shortcomings because, when it comes down to brass tacks, there will always be a point at which the majority of people within a society will say "this choice is good" or "this choice is bad."

 

Now, I'll admit that I've been httting the vino as I often do on Saturday nights, so I don't want to puff up like a message board cowboy. I'm not calling anyone out nor am I trying to outdraw anyone. I'm perfectly willing to use whatever terms on which folks agree. My real point is that there will be a perspective on the part of every person involved and it won't matter if we call it moral, ethical, relative, or self v. other, most folks will fall into common categories based on all sorts of factors. If I were a jaded hater of moralists, I would try to find a way of explaining things outside of morals, and that's fair enough. ...But what is, is. The truth is, no matter what we discuss here, the sides will remain largely the same, no matter what we call them.

 

That being said, I want real dilemmas that entail multi-faceted approaches. So, in my wine soaked brain, while I might have taken a wee bit of offense at the other parts of your post, Seeker, I am nonetheless completely on board with providing as fully fleshed out approach as possible. Even a goody two shoes, golden haired savior wannabe like me can agree with that. After all, in real life, there're a lot more 'bad' answers than good ones. The worst thing in reality isn't that the bad guy sometime wins. That's been true forever. Worse than that is that sometimes you've made some ugly decisions trying to be the good guy only to find out that you were really the bad guy all along.

[Keyrock]

What I'm looking for is for the characters in Project Eternity to entail the full spectrum of attitudes, motivations, reactions, justifications, and prejudices that people have in the real world. There are very few, if any completely "good" and pure people in the world, and very few completely "evil" people. Most people lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, and where that lies is often up for debate. Even people that are mostly kind and generous are prone to give in to vices or temptation sometimes or even lash out in anger given the right circumstances. There are people with good hearts deep down, but that are driven to commit deplorable acts because they have a substance dependency and are desperate to get their fix. There are individuals that had noble goals and ideals, but in the face of resistance and difficulties they turned to more and more extreme approaches to achieve their goals with the "ends justify the means" thought. Along the way they gave in to power lust and their original ideal got lost. Some people may have been lured to a life of crime at an early age by the thrill and easy money aspect of it. As they got older and matured they tried to turn their life around and turn a new page but their former life keeps seeking them out and pulling them back in.

 

I know those were a bunch of cliches I just listed, I just pulled stuff out of my backside for sake of example. My point is that I want the individuals and groups in the world to have real, complex, justifiable motivations for why they act the way they act. When things are cut and dry choices don't present much of a dilemma to the player and thus are not very memorable or exciting. When you really have to rack your brain over a decision and even after you make it you have doubts in the back of your head like "did I really make the right choice?" or "should I have backed this person?" or "I fear when they come to power it may be even worse than it was before", those are the type of choices that you wind up remembering. Sometimes it may be "better" to side with a deplorable noble who mistreats his subjects because he keeps things in order and the economy booming. The alternative may be people with great ideals and noble goals, but they have no idea how to effectively rule the region nor the political or economical ties to keep commerce flowing. Sometimes seemingly "good" acts can have negative consequences and sometimes you may have to get your hands dirty or deal with insidious individuals to get things done.

[BMacklin]

Loving the updates!

[RPGSeeker]

it provides a basis for real discussion, of course, but it ignores two things.

 

When I was referring to "1 dimensional morality" and "2 dimensional ethics" I wasn't referring to morality in general being single faceted, but the specific type of black vs white spectrum morality (well, I guess now I put it that way, it really does become all morality as morality is the evaluation on whatever level of right and wrong, good and bad), and the 2 dimensional ethics is the one I discussed - D&D's cardinal alignment system. So I wasn't intending to say anything about morality or ethics in general, other than that those two specific systems are oversimplified. For example, the idea posed in the post following yours - that there could be a completely good or completely evil person (even though it is phrased as "few if any") boggles my mind in "what exactly does that mean?" Sure, people might agree to varying degrees that concern for the welfare of others is good. They might argue about how that is best obtained (let them get their needs on their own because helping them will only hurt them in the long run butterfly cocoon argument vs help those in need directly), but someone who has absolutely zero concern for the welfare of others may be seen as generally evil or sociopathic. But take the other side of the coin, "looking out for one's own best interest" is pure white to egoists and pitch black to altruists. And to the utilitarian, it's neither until acting on that is compared with the best interest of the population at large. What then, does it mean to be "pure good"?

 

So while any given population may have a majority consensus on some things that are considered "good" and "bad" because of unrecognized presuppositions acquired from indoctrination, those change over time and vary between different populations because of being rooted in indoctrination - what is valued and taught is different. The problem is when a game comes forward with a universal system of "good" vs "evil", and it conflict's with the player's own, it then becomes a "cramming down the throat" style of indoctrination. (In contrast, at least SW:TOR's light side vs dark side is a fictional creation, so if it doesn't match up with with your own notion of right and wrong, that's fine, because it's a fictionally creation about jedi behavior, not what is specifically right or wrong.) For example, the Sword of Truth series, the author wanted to be a modern fantasy Ayn Rand, preaching over and over the virtue of egoism, cramming it down the throat of the reader. The "good guys" were egoists, and the "bad guys" were abusing the concept of utilitarianism for an overlord's ultimately egoist desires. The "victims" were the people caught up with the bad guys trying to sacrifice their own needs for the needs of the many - utilitarians. To me, reading those books was almost torture, but I wanted to "see how the story ended" because the first book or two weren't really dogmatic, and I tend to like finishing series, although this specific series has had me reevaluate that.

 

So rather than subject players to a moral indoctrination, the choices should never be labeled objectively "good" or "evil" on either side of the development. People act toward specific values that they may use to create their concept of morality, but when the concept of morality is directly applied without thought of the underlying values, it's blind, and often only used as a means of manipulation to control others. Sure, let some manipulative self serving force say they're the good guys or that those they oppose are the bad guys, that's fine, it happens a lot, but I don't want to be evaluated by the game on what is "good" or "evil" as I have my own concepts and values.

 

Also, if it's written (the other side of development I mentioned above) with a standard of good and evil in mind instead of a value based system like the one I mentioned, it loses potential. My favorite example is the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R R Martin. There is "an evil" because it can't be communicated with and is hellbent on killing the living, but we don't know its motivations. The humans may try to be "good" people, or may not, or may change over what happens to them (Jaime). Tyrion tries to do good for the masses when he's hand in spite of what is said of him, yet he schemes and manipulates those in court (I suppose in order to avoid "pulling a Ned"). Joffrey might be called evil by some, or Theon, but they are just products of their environment and upbringing (and genetics). The child raised by a king with a HUGE sense of entitlement and a scheming, self serving Queen with an arrogant, overconfident biological father becomes king- how do you expect him to behave? People's love or hatred is based on stereotypes (the imp, the bastard), and their past perceived slights or benefits (starving in need of food, the other person made them feel embarrassed in front of an audience) more than any sense of specific morality. Granted, people loved Ned, but that was more of northman pride and years of good service and role in the war against the mad king than it was his sense of honor and tradition, and some only feigned support because of past slights between houses. The series hugely benefits by not clinging to some specific concept of morality or ethics.

 

Now I know a video game will never have an equivalent amount of writing to an entire book series, and that the writing done is choose your own adventure style reactive. But the more options that are considered and written in, the more sense of freedom people have in the game. Writing to values (serve yourself - seek profit, fame, boons, revenge; serve the people at large - just the locals, the nation, all nations, all races; serve those who have done unto you - reward, repayment; revenge - for percieved slights, for being manipulated, for betrayal, for your family/race/all the innocents) allow for more options than writing to black and white or side vs side. To me, Skyrim was terribly written - 2 opposing factions you can avoid but not leave untouched (empire vs stormcloak) and two opposing factions that one forces you to be with or against (blades vs greybeards), and you can't even kill the blades at the end to prevent their jihad which would likely spark a future dragon war. I tried playing a "for the people" type hero, and the writing simply did not let me uphold that. I either had to side for the war (which I was avoiding because it would hurt the people in general), or allow a family that utilized murderers to keep their family hold to power become a ruler of that town. At the peace talk table, I should have been able to bring up the corruption of the Silverblood family and insist they name another leader, or at least been able to kill the whole corrupt family off, but no, their jarl plant was "essential". Skyrim's choices are grey, but they are so few, it is still shallow even though it avoids black and white.

[alanschu]

They prefer obvious moral delimmas (opportunities to behave good or evil) to moral delimmas where the outcome is ambiguous.

 

Just to nitpick, if a player is at any time able to deduce "This is clearly the best solution for me" (which I find is often the case when choosing between "good" and "evil" then it's not really a dilemma at all.

 

In order to be a dilemma, no choice can be considered to have a practically acceptable outcome. You may have lesser of evils, but ultimately if you could have neither outcome occur, that'd be preferable.