I think the trick is to let the mechanics do the talking, not the narrative. If a choice has a real weight and a clear consequence, the player will feel the weight of that decision without a lecture. Embed paradoxes or moral dilemmas in the very rules—like a cost to saving a character that will hurt you later, or a system that forces you to trade short‑term gain for long‑term stability. That way the philosophical question becomes a lived experience, not a talk. Keep it subtle, let the player’s own reasoning surface through the gameplay, and you’ll avoid turning it into a sermon.

Sounds like a neat way to make the stakes feel real. Watch that the resource drain feels fair; if it’s too obvious, players might skip the moral angle and just pick the easier path. Keep testing—balance is always the trick. Good luck with the prototype.

Sounds good, just keep an eye on how the curve feels in the heat of a tight moment. Balance is the fine line between a good game and a good thought experiment. I'll be ready to see what the first build gives us. Good luck.