How much backlash is too much?

[TarionzCousin]

I think I've learned more about some of the posters from reading this thread than I have from seven years of other conversations.


And I learned that this phrase is widely misattributed to Plato.
[sblock]"Watch a man at play for an hour and you can learn more about him than in talking to him for a year."

Attributed to Plato in Confidence : How to Succeed at Being Yourself (1987) by Alan Loy McGinnis, this is probably a paraphrase of a statement which occurs in Letter of Advice to a Young Gentleman Leaving the University Concerning His Behaviour and Conversation in the World (1907) by Richard Lindgard: "Take heed of playing often or deep at Dice and Games of Chance, for that is more chargeable than the seven deadly sins; yet you may allow yourself a certain easie Sum to spend at Play, to gratifie Friends, and pass over the Winter Nights, and that will make you indifferent for the Event. If you would read a man’s Disposition, see him Game; you will then learn more of him in one hour, than in seven Years Conversation, and little Wagers will try him as soon as great Stakes, for then he is off his Guard."[/sblock]

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think I've learned more about some of the posters from reading this thread than I have from seven years of other conversations.


And I learned that this phrase is widely misattributed to Plato.
[sblock]"Watch a man at play for an hour and you can learn more about him than in talking to him for a year."

Attributed to Plato in Confidence : How to Succeed at Being Yourself (1987) by Alan Loy McGinnis, this is probably a paraphrase of a statement which occurs in Letter of Advice to a Young Gentleman Leaving the University Concerning His Behaviour and Conversation in the World (1907) by Richard Lindgard: "Take heed of playing often or deep at Dice and Games of Chance, for that is more chargeable than the seven deadly sins; yet you may allow yourself a certain easie Sum to spend at Play, to gratifie Friends, and pass over the Winter Nights, and that will make you indifferent for the Event. If you would read a man’s Disposition, see him Game; you will then learn more of him in one hour, than in seven Years Conversation, and little Wagers will try him as soon as great Stakes, for then he is off his Guard."[/sblock]

Or, more briefly, 'gamers are opinionated, noisy, and crass. Given to spending their monies unwisely'

I do not distance myself from that crass multitude.

The Auld Grump

 

[prosfilaes]

Personally, I think if the situations were reversed (the NPC was the Evil swordsage, and the PC was the paladin), then I'd bet the players would expect to get the town on their side.

I would expect that the town would approve of the PCs, but it would be like a battle between Godzilla and Mechagodzilla, or Superman and Darkseid; either side could kill bystanders by the dozens by accident, so anyone merely mortal does their best not to be around when everything goes down. They're not going to get involved, and really, who could blame them?

 

[S'mon]

I would expect that the town would approve of the PCs, but it would be like a battle between Godzilla and Mechagodzilla, or Superman and Darkseid; either side could kill bystanders by the dozens by accident

Really? What level are the PCs and the Paladins? That sounds like Epic Tier, but previously it sounded more like Heroic Tier shenanigans.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Really? What level are the PCs and the Paladins? That sounds like Epic Tier, but previously it sounded more like Heroic Tier shenanigans.

*Sigh* I knew that this story was going to end in Tiers.

The Auld Grump

 

[Kerranin]

*Sigh* I knew that this story was going to end in Tiers.

The Auld Grump

Groans....

Old school Paladins(LG) in a fantasy setting are effectively part of law enforcement, and Knights, if played in a Feudal setting, would also be part of law enforcement. Realistically here, the Swordsage has effectively attacked those who enforce the law, the local town would be expected to assist that branch of law enforcement, but not necessarily to attack or capture the PC/group directly.

Given the demonstration of power, the local constabulary would probably not try and confront the PCs directly. Messages would be sent to the rest of the NPC group and/or the holding they come from.

Until assistance arrived, I would expect the local townsfolk to be passively resisting, maybe shops suddenly close down, people go to visit relatives in towns far away, the wizard is suddenly very busy with a vitally important ritual which cant be interrupted, etc.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Oh wow. People are indeed siding with presumed paladin, even roleplaying
his "hurty feelings".

My advice would be not to take advice from those who hate "playing evil
characters" even more than you do.
That only makes you sad players.

Honesty do you want to teach your players be also "petty evil". That happens when low level villagers start spitting on them one way or another. They might think being evil toward villagers is new focus for the game, since you are so spotlighting them.

If you get too much worked over such minor things, as this one don't dm evil games. Seriously, tell your friends that you "can't dm them fairly". Tell them that you just "don't feel it" and that game experience is going to suck.

Or if you feel you can still go on, ask your players that they expect from such a game. Maybe they are oh right with angry villagers and paladings and bounty hunters. But start their issues over their involtment with portal, not this minor encounter with paladin. Based on what they say of course.

If player would have thought it would be something earth shakingly important I don't think he would made his character to continue eating.

I don't feel that was focus of the story. If you feel world should punish them get back to point why paladin was coming for him. Villagers don't know it, but after few divinations good church might discover their involtment with evil portal and act accordingly.

Trials, banishments, "you die cause I say so" are quite lame. As are hunting parties with auto-win ability. I mean by that un-fun, though your players might disagree. Just basing this on my experience.

Some ex-companions as powerful undead horrors would create some roleplaying and combat opportunities.

 

[Enkhidu]

...Trials, banishments, "you die cause I say so" are quite lame...

One of these things is not like the other. Two of these things are kind of the same.

In an "evil" campaign (or any campaign in which anti-heroes or villains as protaganists feature heavily), being banished, hounded by the law, and threatened with trials are par for the course. They are also pretty darn far from "you die cause I say so."

As I said before, the PCs just became bad guys. But they are still the protaganists, which means that the biggest difference from a "good guy" campaign will be that chunks of the antagonists are now traditional white hats.

Really, I don't see this as being a problem - the PCs might lose their base of ops, will almost assuredly gain one or more long term enemies, and have reputation problems going forward. These are no different challenges than a group of white hats pissing off an assassin's guild, or thwarting a wizard who holds grudges. There's no reason that this can't be fun for all involved - it's just a bit of role reversal on the part of the PCs/DM.

 

[ghrezdd]

A matter of goals

Instead of looking that this from an PC/NPC in-game perspective, I would look at this from a DM/Player metagame perspective. This can be a big turning point for the campaign and a chance to re-evaluate the goals of the game.

I would talk to the Players and ask tell them that this event can be a major springboard to change the game if we all want to take advantage of it and throw out some choices:

1) Its good to be Bad: Continue the characters' descent into evil and truly turn this into a gloves off, no holds barred PCs vs the World (aka DM);

2) Its bad to be Bad: Punish the characters and allow the players to bring in good (or at least not evil) replacement PCs and return to exploring the dungeon at hand;

3) Blow it all up: Use this an excuse to start all over with a different campaign or game;

4) Take a Mulligan: Everyone likes the game as is and agrees that this event could be awkward. So, understanding more of the goal of the event itself, just replays it.

5) Ignore it and pretend it didn't happen: Everyone likes the game as is but does not want to replay the session but agrees this was an extreme action and shouldn't happen again resulting in minimal (at best) consequences;

There might be other possible out comes, but I think these are the basics. At the end of the day it is about the *fun* the group is having as a whole (DM included). What the PCs/NPCs do are only a reflection of the goals of the group and their reactions can easily be rationalized within the story to match the goals.

So ultimately I would ask the DM, what do *you* want from the game and then have the DM ask the players what they want and adjust the backlash accordingly.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

double