Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Shiroiken]

Without knowing details of the campaign, it's tricky to provide some advice. If the despot was intended to be ousted, this would be a good spot to start/introduce a rebellion that frees the two idiots characters. If the despot was supposed to remain in power as an ally, then these two are probably gonna have to die (even if they somehow escaped, the party couldn't be an ally to the despot anymore). If neither matters, then you have more options.

If it were me, I'd have a nice public execution (giving the other players one last chance to decide to save them), as actions should have consequences. The players made their poor choices, and should have their characters pay for them. I'd worry about the instigating player, however, to make sure this isn't a pattern.

 

[Big Bucky]

“You come at the king you best not miss”

this isn’t a problem it’s a gift. An attempt on the insane despot’s life in broad daylight and the would-be Kingslayer refusing to recant under penalty of death? I would kill for that kind of scenario (heyoo!)

The PC is willing to die for a just cause so oblige them. Is the crazy king going to pardon
them for an attempt on his life in broad daylight and in front of his own guards. No he would execute them and probably mount their heads on pikes as a warning to others.

Your job is not to keep the PCs alive. It’s to present a realistic and consistent world. Do what you think would happen if this was real life.

and by the way, what would happen to the town when there is an attempted coup against the tyrant? Will they see your player as a hero and martyr? What about when he says his only regret is he has but one life to give in the fight against tyranny before the blade separates his head from his body? Will this be the impetus for an uprising? Will the people beg the heroes finish the job and take their place on the throne? What an adventure hook they’ve given you.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

“You come at the king you best not miss”

this isn’t a problem it’s a gift. An attempt on the insane despot’s life in broad daylight and the would-be Kingslayer refusing to recant under penalty of death? I would kill for that kind of scenario (heyoo!)

The PC is willing to die for a just cause so oblige them. Is the crazy king going to pardon
them for an attempt on his life in broad daylight and in front of his own guards. No he would execute them and probably mount their heads on pikes as a warning to others.

Your job is not to keep the PCs alive. It’s to present a realistic and consistent world. Do what you think would happen if this was real life.

and by the way, what would happen to the town when there is an attempted coup against the tyrant? Will they see your player as a hero and martyr? What about when he says his only regret is he has but one life to give in the fight against tyranny before the blade separates his head from his body? Will this be the impetus for an uprising? Will the people beg the heroes finish the job and take their place on the throne? What an adventure hook they’ve given you.

Yes. Exactly this (and I was even going to use the same quote).

Attempted assassination is, if anything, worse than assassination; if you succeed, you might have a plausible approach with the successor. But there is no way a ruler is going to let someone try and attack him and get away with it.

If the players try to escape, play it out; but there are consequences to their actions- and this is looking like, unless something changes, an execution. There are worse things in life than to die at the hands of a tyrant (which may be something for the surviving two party members to mull over as well).

 

[Numidius]

The sentiment and inconsiderate actions of the two arrogant pc's should resonate in a lot of people in that kingdom. I would let consequences happen that involve the situation/setting/factions all around.

 

[uzirath]

I agree with others here that the consequences should be real and lasting. This doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs need to die; that depends more on your table culture. Personally, I would have an OOC discussion with the players (including the less headstrong two) to see what they want and then consider how much you are willing to adjust the campaign. The consequence could be a public execution, or the Geas idea from @Umbran, or escaping with a (high!) price on their heads, or causing the nascent rebellion to be stomped out as the ruler unleashes his secret police, etc.

 

[Numidius]

I'm not fond of OOC discussions. I prefer to resolve things IC.
As per the type of public punishment, pit them against a couple of minotaurs in a coliseum... and see if their comrades join in the fight to help them. Or, a royal rumble against a dozen of other disrespectful citizens that are already in jail . Who survives is free. Only one

 

[prabe]

I'm not fond of OOC discussions. I prefer to resolve things IC.

I can understand that, but if the player decided his character was going to act that way because the player was bored or because the player just was expecting a different kind of game, it's kinda an OOC problem, so solving it OOC is likely to be easier and more likely to work than solving it IC. My takeaway from the OP was that this was a player decision, not something inherent in the character.

 

[Big Bucky]

@Snarf Zagyg now I want to do Blades in the Dark hack of The Wire. Omar comin’!

As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs. That’s not fair to put that responsibilty on one person. The GM presents interesting situations/problems/obstacles and describes how the world reacts to what the PCs do. If you do stuff that’s likely to get you killed you are likely going to get killed sooner or later.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's hard to tell what was the feeling of the people around the table without being there.

If the initiator of the mess really disrupted the game because he was "bored", I would not invite him back to play. Think of it this way: if you join a game of football/basketball/whatever, do you think it's acceptable to start playing like an idiot because the game is not going according to your wishes? If you play, play decently until the end of the session as a respect to the others.

But maybe the player genuinely thought that his antics were going to spice up the scene. Or he really gave in to boredom, but later realized it was a mistake to overreact.

At this point I wouldn't mind to ask what they prefer to happen. It's ok if they agree that the party is broken and the two guilty PCs should be abandoned (although I don't buy this enthusiasm towards the "realism" of executions, and would rather simply leave them behind as NPCs, who knows what happens, they might even come handy later), in which case I'd encourage the two players to make new PCs better suited to the story.

It's also ok if they decide that they want to keep playing them, if the other two still care for them. Frankly, I am a bit suspicious of the other two players as well, because I have seen plenty of captured/arrested PCs through the years, but not being abandoned by the others... this is not the kind of "realism" I am looking for in D&D. I run the game with the assumption that the PCs care for each other because they are the heroes (or at least the protagonists), if everyone is for themselves then why bother... it's the "realism" of the remaining 99% of the world population i.e. the NPCs.

If they choose to continue, I wouldn't mind to come up with some external help. Which by the way happens all the time in most movies, novels and such.

 

[the Jester]

As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs.

Agreed- in this case, IMHO, the two pcs have pretty much killed themselves.