My PCs are horrible people!

[fireinthedust]

My group is really losing points for empathy. I'm fascinated by this, and wonder how far they'll spiral morally, however I don't want it to get too out of hand.

1) utter murder of prisoners taken in battle (bandits they captured)
2) Use of rescued slaves as bait to see if dragons are hiding outside
3) plans to buy slaves in the market (yes, the society does it, but it's suggested to be a bad thing).
4) Slapped one of the freed slaves when they said "but where will we go? our homes were destroyed by bandits?" (slaps her) "That's not my problem, now get out of this Inn!" (leaves and is eaten by a dragon)


I don't like alignment systems as I think they're a bit artificial, like labels that inhibit honest character development. HOWEVER, I'm wondering... well, do some humans just plain need to have specific moral structures imposed so they don't "kill all humans"?

Very Hobbes/nihilist group I'm playing with. There may have been some hangover issues from the previous evening. And yes, they're my wife and her two girl friends.

Any suggestions? Is it me? Should I pander?

I mean, maybe random strangers don't hit their moral nerves, but someone in danger who's part of their "tribe" would?

 

[frankthedm]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/168346-does-your-group-abuse-npcs.html

Fate smiles upon the PCs because they are heroes, thus they are destined to have encounters that are usually meaningful, but not often inescapably deadly. Players who do crap like this that find that Encounter levels stop being balanced since by their very actions they have shown they desire more encounters to be inescapably deadly. Their demise often follows as the tables are turned.

I'm with Frank on this.

The whole "Balanced Encounter Guarantee" is reserved for heros or at least those playing within genre. If you leave the harbor of the genre expect to feel the fury of the open sea.

 

[fireinthedust]

ugh. Good thread, though.

well, it'll allow me to try out rules like poisons that assassins drop on them. So far they haven't left anyone standing except one prisoner bandit who they dragged behind a cart for several days. When he crawled away during a fight, and stole the mule and cart they'd left by the back door, the players got really upset. "you're just taking away anything we earn cause you're a jerk!" Terrible. I'm not the one who let that guy escape, nor abandoned a cart in the only escape route he could have taken. I've decided to have him somehow return, maybe with big buddies, or what have you. He's been dubbed "topher grace". Could be good.


the big problem is how to adventure hook them when they ignore any NPC "friends" I try to make for them. Nothing. "He's old" or "meh, it's not my problem". Terrible, terrible.

 

[Gilladian]

Turn the tables. Instead of having them get offered adventures for a reward, or given leads as a thank you or have people come and beg for aid because they're famous for helping the weak, have them get blackmailed into doing awful jobs. Have people try to steal from them because they're so rich and selfish. Have someone try to ambush them and take all their stuff to give it to the poor!

Show the PCs how far towards the "dark side" they've progressed. Have villagers run from them and hide. Maybe a child asks them if they're the bogeyman. Or they hear a song in a bar where THEY are the villains!

 

[Libramarian]

LOL

D&D in a nihilistic, darkly comic mode can be fun sometimes.

Maybe you could have a talk with each of the players individually (i.e. not a big group "you guys are playing wrong" lecture) and ask if they're enjoying the tone of the game, or if they're just going along with it because that's what the loudest group member is doing.

If you think they're genuinely enjoying themselves, let them play, I say. It's just a game.

Nothing worse than a meddling, guilt-tripping DM.

(There are many thing worse, this is an exaggeration.)

 

[Ringlerun]

Sounds like a normal game session to me

 

[Daztur]

Well if they're having fun what's the problem?

Just make sure that they have fun challenges to deal with and they develop an interesting reputation but don't try to force them to play in a way that they don't enjoy, there's no quicker way to kill a campaign.

This is why I had a lot of fun running a Viking campaign, all of the horrible things the PCs did were precisely in genre

 

[molepunch]

If you're not having fun DMing then you should halt the campaign and give them your feedback. You're a player too. I'm not sure I'm keen to the idea that to be "A Good DM" you have to give in to whatever. Unless of course, this was the campaign theme in the first place.

I certainly will get up and walk if my players start trying to justify rape murder abuse etc this is not drama therapy.

 

[Celebrim]

My group is really losing points for empathy. I'm fascinated by this, and wonder how far they'll spiral morally, however I don't want it to get too out of hand.

1) utter murder of prisoners taken in battle (bandits they captured)
2) Use of rescued slaves as bait to see if dragons are hiding outside
3) plans to buy slaves in the market (yes, the society does it, but it's suggested to be a bad thing).
4) Slapped one of the freed slaves when they said "but where will we go? our homes were destroyed by bandits?" (slaps her) "That's not my problem, now get out of this Inn!" (leaves and is eaten by a dragon)

It's a common problem. The usual contributers are:

a) Perceptions of immunity on the part of the PC's. They basically feel that they can get away with anything. DM's often encourage this for fear of ruining the campaign or alienating friends.
b) Acting out empowerment fantasies. Any RPG can have an element of empowerment fantasies, and players can feel a thrill out of violating prohibitions and taboos that they wouldn't break in real life. Sometimes you find players that enjoy playing characters that are almost the exact opposite of themselves in real life.
c) Natural disposition. I'm sure this will be contriversial, but just as you have characters that like playing the opposite of themselves, you also have characters who can only play themselves - and sometimes you find out they are pretty nasty peices of work. Real life may constrain people with violent dispositions to rational choices, but games do not and in fact pretty much encourage let it all hang out.
d) Gamist thinking. Most players end up approaching a game ultimately with a mindset of 'winning', and this tends to get players focused on a purely pragmatic mindset that can generously be called 'neutral ruthless'. These players have characters with moral limits, but who generally won't let moral niceties get in the way of doing anything that they think has a higher purpose.

I don't like alignment systems as I think they're a bit artificial, like labels that inhibit honest character development.

I have never been at a table where they didn't have alignment where at a table where they did I wouldn't have classified every PC as evil. I have from experience rather the opposite view that you do. Deprived of any label or systematic description of their character (whether alignment or some other 'artificial' constraint), players tend to treat their character as a game peice whose personality is shaped only by the necessity of winning.

HOWEVER, I'm wondering... well, do some humans just plain need to have specific moral structures imposed so they don't "kill all humans"?

Some? I would vote for 'all'.

And yes, they're my wife and her two girl friends.

I ran a similar table for a while. Novice gamers almost always get into character more quickly than older ones, and female gamers in particular seem to enjoy strong roles.

Should I pander?

No. I'd avoid metagaming at all; neither pander nor punish for any sort of out of game reason. Rather, let things take their natural course. If they gain a reputation for ruthlessness, they'll be feared - and fearful people are irrational. If they do harm to others, they'll be the objects of hate and people will plot vengeance. If they break the law, then they'll become enemies of the law and soon distrusted throughout civilized lands. They live in a world where the ordinaries are used to demigods rampaging around brutalizing them; they shouldn't be surprised if those ordinaries have brutal countermeasures.

I mean, maybe random strangers don't hit their moral nerves, but someone in danger who's part of their "tribe" would?

I would guess that at some level, there are still things the players consider out of bounds. In my experience 80% of players gravitate to a 'neutral' or 'unaligned' (if you prefer the newer term) morality that can be either ruthless or heroic, but shrinks from getting too far to either side regardless of what they put on their character sheet. It's in my opinion always worthwhile to tell stories that highlight moral difficulties, ambiguities, the difficulty of walking the path of light, and the danger of not doing so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This sounds so familiar...

Knights of the Dinner Table - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia