How much backlash is too much?

[SuperJebba]

I'm not sure if I feel the evil character actually did anything wrong. He was relaxing at a tavern when the paladin barged in, threw him on the table, and threatened him. The NE character defended himself. While the intentions of the paladin might have been Good, I do not believe they were Lawful. It seems to me that -by Law- the NE character was within his rights to defend himself.

The evil character definitely did something wrong. Allow me to explain the situation a bit more in depth.

The swordsage (SS) was in the tavern eating lunch. The door to tavern was kicked open and there stood the paladin. I described him as "looking crazed. His normally polished armor is splattered with dirt and gore. He has a bloody bandage wrapped around his head and a giant gash across his face where his eye once was."

Then he "stormed over to the SS, grabbed the SS by the shirt and threw him onto the table."

And then this is more or less what he said, "What did you do?! I know you're an evil b*****, but I didn't think you would ever do something like this!"

The SS used a maneuver and teleported behind the paladin and held a sword to the back of his neck and said, "What are you talking about?"

The paladin retorted with, "I don't care what you do to me! I can't believe you did this and now they're gone! You b******!"

At this point, the SS decided to kill the paladin because he had no idea what the paladin was talking about and the paladin was continuing to yell at him.

The paladin was already at -1 HP. Why was he still walking around and shouting and bleeding then you ask? I ruled that he was running on sheer rage and adrenaline because he had lost his brother and his newly recruited cohort while closing the abyssal gate, and in his mind, the SS was responsible. After he was done ranting at the SS, he was going to fall over unconscious.

After the SS killed the paladin, he sat back down at his table and finished his lunch.

So, yes, the SS was in the wrong. The paladin never once threatened him with his words. Techinically, he attacked him, but I didn't have anyone make any rolls or anything like that. This was strictly an RP encounter to continue building animosity between the groups.

I would also like to add that while I appreciate the advice and supportive words of those saying I shouldn't DM for this group, mentioning that I hate evil groups was not meant solicit sympathy. I merely mentioned it because I felt like I was overreacting to the situation as I was ready to have a solar come down and kick the crap out of the SS. From the responses, though, it seems I wouldn't be that far out of line having something like this happen.

 

[prosfilaes]

Techinically, he attacked him, but I didn't have anyone make any rolls or anything like that. This was strictly an RP encounter to continue building animosity between the groups.

But that's purely metagame. What happened in game happened whether or not everything was diced out.

 

[Janx]

So, yes, the SS was in the wrong. The paladin never once threatened him with his words. Techinically, he attacked him, but I didn't have anyone make any rolls or anything like that. This was strictly an RP encounter to continue building animosity between the groups.

I would also like to add that while I appreciate the advice and supportive words of those saying I shouldn't DM for this group, mentioning that I hate evil groups was not meant solicit sympathy. I merely mentioned it because I felt like I was overreacting to the situation as I was ready to have a solar come down and kick the crap out of the SS. From the responses, though, it seems I wouldn't be that far out of line having something like this happen.

Let's call a duck a duck here.

Of all the NPC parties to make to "back up" this PC party, you chose to make it a Paladin party. Paladins are known for their inability to play well with other alignments.

What the Paladin party does out at the gate scene is just made up by you. NPCs live or die off camera because the GM ultimately says so.

You then have the NPC Paladin most likely to PO the players go back to the bar and pick a fight by manhandling a PC without any dice rolls.

What exactly did you think was going to happen?

Folks have given widely varying interpretations. Including one that minimizes the consequences of the murder.

I think your choices are:
choose what makes sense from each NPC's perspective
choose what is most fair
choose what makes for a good story
choose what makes sense as a consequence of a an assault and resulting death
choose what does not reward evil

 

[Jhaelen]

My group consists of mostly evil characters or, at best, chaotic neutral characters.
[...]
I absolutely abhor evil PCs and their presence in my games, so I feel like I'm maybe overreacting.

I don't like evil pcs either. Here's what I do:
Before I start a campaign I send everyone a short intro which mentions that evil-aligned pcs aren't allowed. Done.

As a DM, I hate ruling that certain books or play styles can't be played. I feel like I'm pigeonholing the group into playing a game that won't be fun for them. I never know where to draw the line with what's allowed because I personally would be fine playing a game that only allowed the three core books and the PHBII, and I know that most people would not enjoy that.

How do you know unless you try? Make the proposal and see what your players think. Discuss it. Think about what kind of campaign you'd enjoy DMing and tell them about it. Maybe you players will surprise you.

I also feel like it is simply my job as the DM to facilitate a good time for the party, and I don't feel like it will be fun for them if I don't let them play what they want.

Why? (see above)

I have played with this group ever since I've played, or rather DMed, DnD and I've known some of the guys for 20 years (ironically, those are the ones I'm most annoyed with). I don't have anyone else to play with, so I figure that DnD that maybe isn't as fun for me is better than no DnD at all.

Nope. I can tell you from experience that playing in a bad game (or one you don't enjoy) is worse than not playing at all.

I also know from experience that people who I enjoyed playing with 25 years ago can easily be the ones I don't enjoy playing with at all these days. My preferences have changed, their's didn't.
We still get along well in general, but we no longer agree about anything regarding rpgs and we don't have fun if we're in the same game group together.
It happens. There's no use trying to force things. It just painful for everyone involved.

I also have a hard time believing youre 'stuck' with these players. If they really don't share your idea of a fun game and aren't prepared to compromise to ensure you're having fun, too, it's time to look for new players.

As a last alternative, if you don't want to look for new players and if you don't mind being a player in a game with an evil pc party, suggest that one of your current players becomes DM for your group.

 

[Mort]

I would also like to add that while I appreciate the advice and supportive words of those saying I shouldn't DM for this group, mentioning that I hate evil groups was not meant solicit sympathy. I merely mentioned it because I felt like I was overreacting to the situation as I was ready to have a solar come down and kick the crap out of the SS. From the responses, though, it seems I wouldn't be that far out of line having something like this happen.

Actually I would say this is definitely an overreaction. Your intent was to inject animosity - well that certainly happened. The SS response may have been disproportionate to the paladin's action, but he's evil, and in this case was obviously going for "cool factor" (what with the sitting back down to eat lunch bit and all). To me, from the short amount presented, the response was not at all surprising.

You're DMing an evil group of characters, evil actions are going to be the norm, you can't really be surprised, or even worse, angered by them!

The only real issue (for me) is that the SS did this in a very public place and thus my call for consequences. Now, maybe he should just roll an intimidate check, if high enough everyone is too scared to talk and he gets away with it. If not high enough, someone (or everyone) will blab. And now the SS will have a bunch of bloodthirsty killers after him (let's face it, most paladins are bloodthirsty killers - they just happen to be "bloodthirsty killers for justice").

Regardless, the consequences must be appropriate. Having and anvil fall on the SS's head for being "evil", especially in an "evil" campaign, is completely out of line.

 

[hopeless]

Whoa there!

Just my thoughts but from what i read the only reason the paladin thought the sword mage was involved was because he recognised one of the walking dead to be one of his comrades, right?

What evidence did he have that the sword mage was actually present?

After all for all he knew the zombie might have been buried nearby its not as if they saw the PCs fleeing the fight leaving the gate wide open now did they?

Now if they saw them fleeing the area before the resulting fight the real question is how many of the LG party survived the fight and why weren't they following the obviously stricken paladin to prevent him from making more of a mess than what had happened?

As from whats described all he's guilty of is murdering someone who was clearly not thinking straight, he might get away from being imprisoned but he will be hunted down and brought in for questioning by the Paladin's church and if his fellow PC's have any sense they'll seek a neutral party to act as their judge before it gets to that stage.

And as for the others what was their reaction to all of this?

 

[delericho]

IMO, the town shouldn't respond... at first. After all, they've just lost a powerful champion, the PCs are clearly powerful. So, they should probably cower in fear.

And then dispatch people to hire a group of samurai to come run the PCs out of town.

Also, since the area is infused with negative energy, that Paladin ain't going to stay dead. I think it's time for an undead blackguard out for revenge...

Oh, and finally: if you don't like running a game for evil PCs, next time ban evil PCs!

 

[Madeiner]

The evil character definitely did something wrong. Allow me to explain the situation a bit more in depth.

The swordsage (SS) was in the tavern eating lunch. The door to tavern was kicked open and there stood the paladin. I described him as "looking crazed. His normally polished armor is splattered with dirt and gore. He has a bloody bandage wrapped around his head and a giant gash across his face where his eye once was."

Then he "stormed over to the SS, grabbed the SS by the shirt and threw him onto the table."

And then this is more or less what he said, "What did you do?! I know you're an evil b*****, but I didn't think you would ever do something like this!"

The SS used a maneuver and teleported behind the paladin and held a sword to the back of his neck and said, "What are you talking about?"

The paladin retorted with, "I don't care what you do to me! I can't believe you did this and now they're gone! You b******!"

At this point, the SS decided to kill the paladin because he had no idea what the paladin was talking about and the paladin was continuing to yell at him.

The paladin was already at -1 HP. Why was he still walking around and shouting and bleeding then you ask? I ruled that he was running on sheer rage and adrenaline because he had lost his brother and his newly recruited cohort while closing the abyssal gate, and in his mind, the SS was responsible. After he was done ranting at the SS, he was going to fall over unconscious.

After the SS killed the paladin, he sat back down at his table and finished his lunch.

So, yes, the SS was in the wrong. The paladin never once threatened him with his words. Techinically, he attacked him, but I didn't have anyone make any rolls or anything like that. This was strictly an RP encounter to continue building animosity between the groups.

I would also like to add that while I appreciate the advice and supportive words of those saying I shouldn't DM for this group, mentioning that I hate evil groups was not meant solicit sympathy. I merely mentioned it because I felt like I was overreacting to the situation as I was ready to have a solar come down and kick the crap out of the SS. From the responses, though, it seems I wouldn't be that far out of line having something like this happen.

I think this amounts to bad communication.
To me, it would be clear that that was an RP encounter. Like you see in the movies, the good guy storming bruised and battered and "threatening" the bad guy without actually harming him.
However the scene failed. You should have hinted more that that was an RP encounter.

 

[delericho]

The evil character definitely did something wrong.

<snip>

So, yes, the SS was in the wrong.

Actually, that isn't your call to make (as DM). You're not there to pass judgement on PC actions, except as they relate to alignment changes (which isn't an issue here). You describe the situation, the players describe how their characters react. That's basically it.

Consider: if this was some random orc, you wouldn't be having a huge inquest into whether the PC was right to kill him or not, would you? As DM, the paladin and the orc are the same - they're just antagonists in the campaign that the PCs interact with.

Now, what you do need to decide on is how the characters in the setting judge the situation. But here, it's important to remember that those people are not all going to be of one mind:

1) Some will have seen the event, and sided with the paladin. They saw a known troublemaker gut a wounded man without a thought, and then callously go back to his meal.

2) Some will have seen the event, and sided with the swordsage. The paladin was obviously crazed, and they never liked him anyway. The swordsage is Han, the paladin Greedo; turns out the swordsage is even more badass than they thought!

3) Some will have seen the event and been scared. They don't know who was right and who was wrong, but they want both these people far away from them.

4) Some will have seen the event, have picked a side... but really just want a quiet life. See #3.

5) Some will not have seen the event, but will hear about it later. They'll probably hear several partial versions, each with their own spin. They're going to have a whole bunch of different reactions to it.

And so it goes on. Bear in mind that not all of these observers will be impartial, many of them will only have partial information, and some of them will be completely wrong in their interpretation!

But the key thing here is that you're deciding how the characters judge the situation; it is not your role as DM to judge the PC actions. It's just a bunch of stuff that happened.

 

[was]

the town probably wouldn't do anything due to the perceived power of the pc...the paladins church, however, could put a sizeable bounty on the pc or make killing the pc a holy quest/thing