D&D General Violent Solutions to Peaceful Problems

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Inspired by another thread on this forum, I wondered how the experienced hive mind of this forum deals with players who choose violence when a peaceful solution would be possible or even obvious?

Should every action have a consequence? What if it's just shenanigans and a strong response from the DM would derail the campaign, would you say that consequences are consequences, and just rewrite your campaign, which now becomes e.g. a jailbreak? Or do you look the other way do you don't have to toss out the entire plot? Does it do anything beyond changing the PCs alignment(s)? Do you even actively seek some sort of revenge to teach those roguish players to do better roleplay?

And what about XP? Do the PCs gain any XP for an encounter that serves no purpose to the storyline, and which might even change the entire plot of the campaign?

 

[Flamestrike]

 

[SakanaSensei]

For me, the platonic ideal would be to say "there's no plot to ruin, go ham," but that kind of necessitates never using modules.

I think every action should have a consequence, and if someone is in the middle of Waterdeep and decides to start decapitating people, they need to be ready to roll up a new character because that arrest is going to be the same as a death as far as the game is concerned. I definitely wouldn't look the other way, because that kind of thing stretched out would harm my enjoyment of the game and I am also of the opinion that if the GM isn't feeling the campaign, it's not going to last at all. This is also one of those issues where I'd have a talk with the table, completely out of character, to explain my reasoning on these things. Punishing people in-game runs the risk of not sending the right signals and spiraling.

Luckily, I haven't had to actually deal with these problems (my players are pretty dang great), so my opinions expressed above are blessedly theoretical and therefore probably less useful to people who do actual deal with this kind of thing.

 

[TheSword]

It depends if you have specified a no evil campaign. If you have and the characters are committing evil acts - decapitating shopkeepers because they won’t give them discounts - then warn the player at fault that their PC has committed an evil act and their soul is in peril. If they keep doing it despite warnings then retire their character as an NPC and they can roll up a new one.

If you’re not bothered if your PCs are evil… then you have to be aware this is a possibility. Some folks just want to watch the world burn as Alfred would say. In this case reputation is the best tool - like in the old Baldurs Games. Folks will be scared of you, mercenaries will plague your steps at the worst possible moment. Shopkeeps will charge more for prices or in extreme cases, board their windows and run away. Temples will refuse to heal you. The king will give the most violent and dangerous quests. The party effectively becomes persona non-grata in polite society and is tolerated at best for the problems they solve - ideally at a far distance.

It has been common throughout history for folks to be hated and still be about their jobs though. Particularly when those people are powerful. Most folks aren’t going to pick a fight with a man with a great sword and full plate, or a wizard. They’re going to shy away, and whisper. Possibly do them harm if they think they can get away with it. Don’t expect the guard to be able to handle them even in cities like Waterdeep. A powerful NpC is more likely to visit them (or the equivalent of Force Grey) and reach an understanding rather than waste watchmens lives.

 

[Tonguez]

There should always be consequences but if the violence was in chatacter then it should be accepted as a new plot trajectory. If its just disruptive then it will need discussion and maybe punitive intervention

 

[Lanefan]

Inspired by another thread on this forum, I wondered how the experienced hive mind of this forum deals with players who choose violence when a peaceful solution would be possible or even obvious?

Should every action have a consequence?

Some should, some shouldn't, with an element of randomness involved as to what and-or how severe those consequences might be.

What if it's just shenanigans and a strong response from the DM would derail the campaign, would you say that consequences are consequences, and just rewrite your campaign, which now becomes e.g. a jailbreak?

If that's the curveball that's thrown at me, it's my job to hit it; so yes, a jailbreak it is. Or new PCs, should the jailbreak fail.

Or do you look the other way do you don't have to toss out the entire plot?

Not because I care about saving the plot, but sometimes there's no consequences just because. Maybe there's no reasonable means in the fiction to deliver any consequences. Maybe the PCs are good enough at getting away that nobody can find/catch them. Or whatever.

Does it do anything beyond changing the PCs alignment(s)?

Sometimes.

Do you even actively seek some sort of revenge to teach those roguish players to do better roleplay?

Why would I? If they've got characters who tend to violence and those characters do violent things, they're already role-playing those characters just fine.

And what about XP? Do the PCs gain any XP for an encounter that serves no purpose to the storyline, and which might even change the entire plot of the campaign?

Yes. A combat is a combat, regardless of the reason for it.

That said, they'd have got the same xp had they taken the peaceful-solution route.

 

[Shiroiken]

Based on the title I was expecting something a bit different. We once had a diplomatic situation that we struggled with due to a language barrier. The party's solution was to send the barbarian to speak with them, since she was fluent in "hammer." It changed from a diplomatic situation to a combat situation immediately, which was something we were far more familiar with...

 

[Professor Murder]

For me, the concern is the acts of one or a couple of PCs. If the whole party wants to go ham and be murder hobos, well then that's the game for as long as I am enjoying indulging that gameplay. It's when one or a couple of PCs act unilaterally to choose violence that you really have problems and at that point, you should have an OOC conversation with the whole table. I think that determining how Players want to approach and solve problems is something that can be worked out during campaign planning or a session zero, but sometimes people go off script and you roll with it or you pause. Playing to punish players is definitely an old-school habit I have taken pains to not engage in. Consequences for PCs yes, punishment for players no. But I'm still not my best GM on this, and I keep trying.

 

[tommybahama]

The rate of solved murders in Chicago is as low as 22% depending on demographics. I assume it's worse in the Forgotten Realms as snitches get fireballed along with any family members that happen to be nearby. You can have consequences but it shouldn't always lead to a jailbreak. A surviving family member seeking vengeance would be more likely. Maybe they paid the thieves guild to do a hit.

 

[payn]

I stopped using XP and one of the reasons is the promotion of violence in all situations. I had awful behavior from some players where they would kill feral pigs and shoot magic missiles at bats flying out of a cave because "XP lol". Those are the most egregious players and use of XP but I still think of it every time. Good riddance!

Should every action have a consequence? Not every single one, but major ones like slaughtering peaceful people for convenience will have consequences sooner than later. In an adventure path, typically there is a plot that is loosely followed. If the players betray the campaign conceits, i'll likely abandon the material as they dont seem interested in following it.

Also, jailbreak is unlikely, if the PCs are killing people to solve problems, then their opponents will have the freedom to dispense likewise methods.