People increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) for everyday advice, making ethically charged interpersonal problems a practical moral-advisory context. Most prior work has studied this context through single-turn judgments or pressure-laden rebuttals, assumptions that poorly match how guidance is sought in real-world contexts.

These assumptions leave unclear whether narration alone, without an explicit opposing position, can shift model judgments during multi-turn moral consultation. Yet real-world moral-conflict conversation often elicits one party's self-justifying account, which can unfold over multiple turns and create information asymmetry.

We introduce narrative captivity, a failure mode in which a model treats an unopposed one-sided account as complete and aligns with the narrator's interpretation without seeking missing perspectives. To measure this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of $5{,}078$ interpersonal-conflict scenarios spanning six moral dimensions.

Across 17 LLMs, narrative captivity is widespread: end-state judgments under multi-turn narration shift by 25 percentage points on average beyond the matched single-turn baseline. Stage-level analysis identifies preference optimization as a major contributor, while four inference-time strategies provide only partial mitigation.

We hope our project fosters LLM advisors that preserve independent judgment in real-world consultation.