CapnZapp
Legend
Sorry Hemlock, but your scenario falls under the "the PCs could already murder innocent commoners and steal their stuff" clause.
The proper solution is to simply not play with players that actually suggest they forcefeed the deck to hapless commoners and then steal their gold. If that's not what you want (in a CE campaign, it might be okay)
Because that is what they are doing. (If they actually let the peasant keep everything he gains, only asking for a small compensation for protecting him or her from the deck's more dangerous outcomes, it's another story)
Or more to the point: the view that the rules need to cover this case is a view I discard, as in "No, the rules should not bother to cover every corner case where players go all murder-hobo on the populace."
Taken to its extreme, that path ends with the notion the rules need to prevent the PCs from abusing their surroundings completely.
There's a difference between patching rules loopholes and (attempting to) fix the outcomes of completely amoral characters. The latter is a hopeless task.
The proper solution is to simply not play with players that actually suggest they forcefeed the deck to hapless commoners and then steal their gold. If that's not what you want (in a CE campaign, it might be okay)
Because that is what they are doing. (If they actually let the peasant keep everything he gains, only asking for a small compensation for protecting him or her from the deck's more dangerous outcomes, it's another story)
Or more to the point: the view that the rules need to cover this case is a view I discard, as in "No, the rules should not bother to cover every corner case where players go all murder-hobo on the populace."
Taken to its extreme, that path ends with the notion the rules need to prevent the PCs from abusing their surroundings completely.
There's a difference between patching rules loopholes and (attempting to) fix the outcomes of completely amoral characters. The latter is a hopeless task.
