Due to their unique persuasive power, language-capable robots must be able to both act in line with human moral norms and clearly and appropriately communicate those norms. These requirements are complicated by the possibility that humans may ascribe blame differently to humans and robots. In this work, we explore how robots should communicate in moral advising scenarios, in which the norms they are expected to follow (in a moral dilemma scenario) may be different from those their advisees are expected to follow. Our results suggest that, in fact, both humans and robots are judged more positively when they provide the advice that favors the common good over an individual's life. These results raise critical new questions regarding people's moral responses to robots and the design of autonomous moral agents.