Players gone wild in Hommlet - RTTOEE

[Oogar]

I never said lawful good=lawful pansy. I'm basing lawful good on the notion of "what would a paladin do under these circumstances?"

I know this is a side comment, but this attitude bothers me a little. Saying that all Lawful Good characters would act like a paladin is, to me, like saying all Vo-Tech physics teachers think like Rocket Scientists. Yes, both groups work with science, but it is a matter of degree (pun intended).

 

[Zenon]

Heck, why don't we throw out another scenario. What if the other party members go for a jail-break to free the imprisoned barbarian?

Being wanted outlaws could be quite interesting.

Oooo.....

Have some of the cultists break them out and use them for their own ends. Wouldn't it be cool to have Jaroo convincing them that 3/4 of the town is indeed under the influence of the cult. Some killin' need to be done, and he's found just the crew....

If it every got all sorted out, the party would look like such a bunch of fall-guys, there to take the rap.

There's nothing like worshiping the Dark God to give you insane insights into how to use things!

BTW, Pielorinho, I like your idea too.

 

[Dieter]

I know this is a side comment, but this attitude bothers me a little. Saying that all Lawful Good characters would act like a paladin is, to me, like saying all Vo-Tech physics teachers think like Rocket Scientists. Yes, both groups work with science, but it is a matter of degree (pun intended).

Again, if Rufus is a high-level (which he is), he would most likely be the living embodiment of lawful good. You can't attain a position of such high "degree" of authority without a large dose of egotism, hence, my thinking that Rufus' attitudes would be akin to that of a paladin.

 

[Billboard Baggins]

Frankly, I think Rufus & Co would be rather pissed at this rogue group of adventurers. Being experienced adventurers themselves, they have firsthand knowledge of copmbat, death, and suffering - and they can appreciate how tough adventurers can be vs. town guards an civilians. A barbarian kicking in a shop and killing the lady is the modern day equivalent of stealing a tank and driving about machinegunning people. Also, Rufus & Hommlet & Co are used to confronting trouble with sword & spell so they will not shy from kicking the ass of the party - barbarian especially, but all of the troublemakers. Avoiding modern-day meta-thinking (Imprison them for life), their response would be to kill or exile the party after taking all their stuff to as compensation. Remember - imprisonment requires a jail and guards able to reatrain an adventuring party and associated resources Hommlet dosen't have, especially in light of the nearby threats. Nobody knows how hard it would be to restrain an adventuring party than old adventureres (Rufus & Co).

LG characeters go about slaying evil all the time in DnD without any trouble. What's the difference between a murdering Orc and a murdering Barbarian? Not very much, unless justice is based on race and not action... a very possible situation (happens in the real world to our regret, happened even more in history). Avoid modern day shades of grey meta-thinking in your interpretation of good & evil. Also remember the Old West and how local sherrifs would gun you down just for preseting a possible threat - they kept order in a tough world, could be considered LG protectors of frontier towns, and had no problems killing people.

If you need a good out without killing the party ansd possibly canning the campign by exterminating everybody, have Rufus find a powerful geas item in his basement or something (Rule 0) - then magically commit the whole party to destroying the TOEE and returning all treasure to the town, with no options to delay the quest or quit. It's an elegent answer - removes the troublemakers from the town. Doesn't directly kill them, but pits them in mortal combat against evil - and how often in history has "trial by combat" been an acceptable form of determining justice? If they win, Rufus & town get the loot to repay them for the murders and trouble, and the party has paid its debt. If they loose, they are dead and no more trouble, and in the process weaken the evil threat near Hommlet. Plus it is fun revenge for the GM, since you get the whole party to bust their asses defeating evil and not keeping the loot, and great opportunity for some kickass roleplaying.

- Billboard Baggins

 

[Xastalask]

actually Vikings had death debts. If you read some of the viking literature, Njal Saga for example, when someone kills another they pay a blood debt to the family.

Xastalask

Hold on a minute. 3,000 gp's compensation? You do realise that's more than most commoners or watchmen would ever even see in their lives - giving them that much seems a bit ridiculous. Plus the fact that the concept of compensation for things like this was really rather unknown during the medieval period. A man might have to pay some blood money to the family of the victim if he was even let off alive, but it would be nowhere near as vast an amount.

 

[Zouken]

Wow, I didn't think this thread would illicit this big of a response. Thanks for all of the input. This whole killing spree was no fun for me, but it seemed that at least some of the party was having fun, and the barbarian player seemed proud of himself afterwards for mixing things up. If the players want this campaign to continue, they will become outlaws and they won't have any allies in this part of the country.

I've decided that the CN barbarian shifted to CE, will serve trial and will be executed. The player will be disappointed, but I won't let this type of activity go punished.

The CN fighter is a bounty hunter, will serve some time pay a fine and will be kicked out of Hommlet with the threat of further imprisonment/and or death on his return. He is new to the party and eventually surrendered so I'll take it easy on him (plus his last character died last session). He was generally trying to stay neutral during the whole fray but was resisting arrest. Investigation will prove that the woman in the inn was indeed evil and a cultist, but she did nothing to provoke her murder, so things will go badly for the barbarian, but will go easier on the fighter. Alternatively he will be given the option to bring in the cleric dead or alive to clear his name.

The LN Cleric got away, but a bounty will be placed on his head and he has definately given Boccob a bad name in Hommlet. This may have future rammifications with the Church of Boccob. This character will have to dodge bounty hunters for the next year or so of his life. I'm thinking his alignment will drift to either N or LE, any suggestions?

The CG halfling rogue was actually trying to smooth over everything the barbarian was doing so as long as he doesn't return to Hommlet. If he does return he will be questioned and held under suspicion and nothing more. He has been the most diplomatic character in the party and has worked hard to keep things together.

I'd like to continue this campaign, but this may have just killed it. Lovely, I guess it may be time for someone else to DM for a change. What ever happened to HEROIC PCs that is what I'd like to know.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Heroic PCs weren't sitting at your table I'm afraid. Two CN's (one Chaotic Crazy), a CG and the Cleric was LN?! IMC a LN Cleric who willfully resisted lawful arrest (they did just murder a person afterall) and then actually killed some of the arresting officers would be stripped of all clerical powers and suffer an alignment shift to N. Atonement might be possible but it would be difficult and take a very long time.

I still think imprisonment for the Fighter was justified but I can see why you'd want to go easy on the player.

Don't give up on DMing just because of this one sour adventure. Talk to your players and see what kind of game they really want. If if isn't something you're comfortable with running then by all means let someone else run the next one. If you think you can handle it get back up on that horse and ride her!!!

 

[Zouken]

I won't stop DMing. Everyone seems to have a great time whenever I'm behing the screen and one of the players always expresses his view that I am a great DM and that I'll doing a good job. He actually mentioned that he was pleased at how well I handled everything last night. It's primarily the player of the barbarian that threw everything over the edge. The cleric player just went along with him and the fighter seemed like he was trying to decide what to do. The rogue seemed pretty disgusted with the barbarian at certain points, but I believe he still sees him as a friend. He may try to plan a breakout, but I will meta-game and advise against that particular course of action.

Zouk'

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think being tough on the PCs - i.e. executions - is a good idea in both a metagame and in-game sense.

In a metagame sense, it lets the players know that you aren't coddling them, which usually (in my experience) results in players taking things more seriously. By "serious" I mean they start playing the game as a pencil & paper roleplaying game and not as a first person shooter video/computer game.

In an in-game sense, it's good because it lends an air of realism to the setting. That is, the setting suddenly becomes a world of its own, rather than a big playground set up expressly for the PCs to play in and trash at will.

 

[Dieter]

According to the outcomes posted by Zouken, it sounds as if half the party (the cleric & rogue) have a sporting chance at continuing the adventure.

The cleric could easily start on a path of redemption and the rogue
can serve as the appointed party spokesperson for all matters relating to Hommlet and the party.

Perhaps the deposed characters (fighter & barbarian) could next play members of the Hommlet government, serving as "advisors" to the cleric and rogue.

Just my 2 cp.