Ah, gotcha.
We agree on this.
Yeah, I'm operating off the idea in the OP that either the original DM or the group as a whole found this a problem that needed fixing. This will depend on the group for sure, and as this thread shows, many folks have strong feelings about this kind of stuff.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the PCs being anti-heroes or even villains, as long as things don't get creepy or whatever. Not a problem in either of the groups I play with, but I know them all well enough that's not a concern. In a public game, I'd be more cautious about it, I expect, but I don't think I'd ban it outright.
Well, I suspect-without-evidence that either the original DM was expecting them to escape peacefully (somehow!) or - and I'm not sure if this has come up yet as a possibility - might have had a plan in mind to present a clear and obvious escape opportunity at some point later, maybe the next in-game morning or something after narrating a peaceful night; only things never got that far due to the escape-with-high-violence during the night.
I mean, for all we know maybe the guards were going to get secret orders in the morning telling them to take the prisoners out of town and quietly let them go.
And as it sounds like there was very limited if any communication between the original DM (ODM) and the replacement DM (RDM) before the session began, if the ODM in fact had such ideas in mind the RDM wouldn't have known of them. And so as the RDM could only go with what was in front of him, it's possible (again purely speculating here) that the overnight was narrated/played out in a much more granular manner than the ODM had in mind, thus giving the players what they thought were potential openings to escape - which, naturally, they leaped at.
Edit: typo
I do expect that the difference between what the original DM intended and what actually happened is likely a factor. We don't know what that was, though. We only know what the OP shared. Based on what was shared, I don't really see where things would have went differently.
Here are what I see as the decision points for the players, such as they are:
- They could have not surrendered when arrested... but that would have likely resulted in a violent confrontation much earlier, and at a social event rather than a jail.
- They could have not failed to escape the cell. Of course, if they managed to get out of the cell, they'd still have to quietly escape from the jail... and we know how that went.
- They could have turned down the mysterious stranger's offer. This would have left them in the jail cell, waiting for the judge's mercy. We don't know what would have happened here.
- After accepting the mysterious stranger's offer, they could have escaped quietly. It's a bit unclear if they tried and failed to do so, or if they just went into murder mode right away.
On the other hand, the DM could have done the following:
- The DM did not need to have the PCs arrested. That could have been left up to play (savvy moves and good rolls, clever roleplay, whatever).
- The DM could have decided that the authorities simply confiscated the PCs' weapons, but left them free on the condition they don't leave town. This lets the players go about trying to clear their name, but hinders their offensive capability.
- When the PCs surrendered to arrest, he could have had them immediately face the judge, just narrate their miserable night in jail, and then move to the scene with the judge, for whatever purpose that would have had.
- Alternatively, once they surrendered, he could have immediately jumped to the mysterious stranger, narrating the long hours until then.
- Once they accepted the stranger's offer, the DM could have had the stranger posses a means of escape... a secret tunnel or a teleportation spell or whatever.
- Once the players failed to escape and decided to go into murder mode, the DM could have sent fewer forces after them. The body count here is just as much the DM's responsibility as it is the players'. Okay, they're willing to kill to escape... once we know that, let's just move along instead of throwing more and more guards against them so that they become the greatest villains the city has ever known or whatever. Related, the DM can decide there have in fact been worse villains in the city's history.
In my eyes, the DM contributed to this outcome far more than the players did. Their points of input or meaningful decisions are really narrow and limited compared to the DM's.
I know there's often a reflexive need to defend DMs, but I cannot understand how anyone could analyze the details we have and determine that the players were in any way in the wrong here.
