Advice: Consequences for a player's mistakes

[Celebrim]

Mistake #1: The PC gains the animosity of both the Smuggler and the Nobleman. Every few game sessions, either tries to wreck vengence on the PCs.
Mistake #2: This isn't normally as big of deal as it seems. Clearly, the PC isn't one to worry too much about moral finepoints, so there is no internal conflict. It would be a big deal in the real world, but in a world were mind control is a reutine affair, the 'the ones I murdered were possessed by evil spirits' defence is a reutine one that legal systems will be prepared to handle and weigh evidence on. The PC should go to trial, but barring meddling by the foes he earned in #1 such as the nobleman rigging the trial (bribes, false witnesses, evidence in the PC's favor disappears, switching bodies to get 'speak with the dead' to yield surprising results), he should get off.

The 'Nobleman rigs the trial' plan is so intriguing to me that that is the way I'd go. The set up for this is just beautiful:

1) PC is told he has to go to trial for the murder of the soldiers, but is told that its just a pure formality. If the PC is innocent, as everyone believes he is, then he'll get off and charges will be dismissed before lunch.
2) Nobleman tampers with the evidence. He uses 'witchcraft' to disguise an assasin as the PC, then kills someone that looks like one of the soldiers. He has the bodies switched. At the PC's trial, the court priest 'speaks with the dead' and discovers that the body believes he was murdered, that he begged for mercy, and that he identifies the murder as being in the room. All the questions are the wrong questions (no one bothers to ask the body whether it was on the city wall because its in a guards armor) , leading to the wrong conclusions. The rest is incoherent.
3) The prosecution then produces a witness who states that he saw the events take place, and produces a testimony extremely unfavorable to the PC (the PC was drunk, professed allegiance to the invader, murdered the gaurds in cold blood, and allowed no mercy or quarter, whatever).

 

[Janx]

1) PC is told he has to go to trial for the murder of the soldiers, but is told that its just a pure formality. If the PC is innocent, as everyone believes he is, then he'll get off and charges will be dismissed before lunch.
2) Nobleman tampers with the evidence. He uses 'witchcraft' to disguise an assasin as the PC, then kills someone that looks like one of the soldiers. He has the bodies switched. At the PC's trial, the court priest 'speaks with the dead' and discovers that the body believes he was murdered, that he begged for mercy, and that he identifies the murder as being in the room. All the questions are the wrong questions (no one bothers to ask the body whether it was on the city wall because its in a guards armor) , leading to the wrong conclusions. The rest is incoherent.
3) The prosecution then produces a witness who states that he saw the events take place, and produces a testimony extremely unfavorable to the PC (the PC was drunk, professed allegiance to the invader, murdered the gaurds in cold blood, and allowed no mercy or quarter, whatever).

This seems to be a bit of a railroad. Too many elements run by the DM with the players just watching the trial play out.

Even better would be to let the PC represent themselves (or have one of the other players play his laywer). The point would be to let them role-play the trial more, AND submit the questions themselves. See if the players hang themselves, by not asking the right clarifying questions.

Since the spell only works for a duration, you could rule that both sides get a # of questions that they can ask in order, but must be submitted before the spell is cast (perhaps the priest must be the one to ask all questions by law). Thus, the players have to do some thinking on what to ask to prove their innocence, not knowing what the prosecution will ask.

If one player actually thinks the defendant is guilty, let him play the prosecution, since he'll play that well.

If you can, keep all the players (not necessarily the PCs) involved in active roles in the trial.

You can do this, whether you implement smuggler's evil scheme or not. It'd be even more wicked because the prosecution does not know this switch has happened.

 

[Badjak]

I think that Celebrim's idea is brilliant. Not only would it make for an amazing quest, but it would also be a great plot for a murder mystery. I second his notion. Have a formal military trial for the character where he is assured he will be aquitted because he was obviously putting the good of the the entire city above the good of him and his men, and then let the noblemen tamper the evidence so that it looks like he is actually the murderer a la The Fugitive. And then let the rest of the party solve the mystery while he sweats it out wondering if they'll figure it out before the public execution. You could even have people in the prison have grudges against him as a "witch" and attack him when he's alone like in Oz. That would be a fun adventure.

 

[Celebrim]

This seems to be a bit of a railroad.

Well, yes, the character is getting railroaded. That's the point. However, in this case, it's not the DM driving, but an NPC in the game doing what nobles who have already discovered they can't best their rivals in swordplay do.

Too many elements run by the DM with the players just watching the trial play out.

This is always a danger in any big ceremonial scene. It's often worth it though to achieve some effect.

The point would be to let them role-play the trial more, AND submit the questions themselves. See if the players hang themselves, by not asking the right clarifying questions.

There are plenty of oppurtunities for role-play in the context of a trial. I think it unlikely though that the questioning of a corpse would be left up to any party but the legally authorized clerical authority. Quite obviously, the priest is going to want to cross examine the witness to follow up leads, not entertain wild questions from the defence or the prosecution.

Assuming that the nobleman schemed well, the obvious questions like "What is your name?" have been handled.

The big point of this scene is that it should come as a shock to the PCs (and most of the NPCs).

The PC's must figure out: what happened, who is behind it, how to prove the innocence of a comrade.

Plus, for added tension, depending on a Knowledge (Law) skill check, the PC now faces execution in as little as 24 hours and must escape (this shouldn't be made too difficult) and evade the city watch (which if he isn't careful will lead to actual serious crimes that will make the question of innocence mute) if he is to solve the mystery.

You can do this, whether you implement smuggler's evil scheme or not. It'd be even more wicked because the prosecution does not know this switch has happened.

Well, that's the idea. The evidence has been tampered with. A witness has been paid to lie (and if necessary been given the magical protection enabling them to do so). And not everyone (and maybe not anyone) on the prosecution is corrupt. Some are just trying to do their duty.

 

[Herobizkit]

Ooh, fun idea:

The PC asserted that 'witchcraft' was the cause of both of his 'mistakes'. This prompts the king to enlist the services of your friendly neighborhood witch-hunter.

Witch-Hunter: "Ye must have the Demon Sight to be seein' witchcraft at every turn. Since ye seem to have so much luck finding 'em, I'm gonna be followin' along to make sure ye don't fall under their terrible influence."

The PC now has someone breathing down his neck, watching his every move, AND the moves of all of his teammates. Picture the penultimate Lawful Good "eye-for-an-eye" type who questions everything and sees potential evil in every action. If the PC can PROVE that witchcraft was involved in either/both instances, the King will release the PC from persecution.

 

[Starfox]

Mistakes? I see no mistakes here. I think both of these were very cool role-playing moments, well set up by the DM and well played. Kudos all around.

Consequences? In my 4E game, I have a system of non-combat feats that can be used to purchase non-combat skills and advantages or disadvantages. yes, you spend these "positive" points on things like having a nemesis. Because having a named enemy ultimately gives your character more screen time, and thus, the disadvantage for the character is really an advantage for the player. This is the kind of disadvantages I'd give the player. By his actions, he has become more central to the plot. If he sides with the king, the noble family might refuse to serve in the upcoming war - which is a cool plot. Ambushers might go specifically for him at some point - presumably hired by the family, but perhaps really hired by the smuggler cum merchant wanting to remove this embarrassment. Or the woman betrayed might begin to hate him - or even fall in love with him (it was HE who defended my virtue against my brother, not my lousy lover). In any case, more plot involvement for the character, which is a reward for the player.

 

[roguerouge]

If you can kill an entire squad, you could have used nonlethal force. it's just a -4 to hit. I'd say KP duty or ditch-digging for a lengthy period along with a reduction in rank as a punishment for excessive force.

 

[invokethehojo]

I haven't read all the responses here, so sorry if I repeat any ideas. It sounds like your player isn't a bad player, just rash, and isn't really screwing up your campaign too bad (I've seen much worse) just not going with the flow.

You might run a short session, and hour or two, with just the PC. Discuss the mistakes, and then roleplay the punishment for them, explaining that a little of this is fine, but if you keep having to do it the campaign will start to revolve around this guys screw ups.

I'd say have a member of the noble court blackmail the character. The character pledged his sword to the King, and killing those gaurds could jeopardize that. Basically, set this nobleman up as a big brother figure, always with an eye on the PC. if the PC screws up again this guy will hear about it and need a bribe or similar to keep his mouth shut or he tells the king (maybe even lies to the king and makes his mistakes sound worse). The 'bribe' could be the in game punishment for making another mistake, or you could make the PC owe him a 'favor' and roleplay the punishment.

I think the best way is to keep the resolution in game, since that's where the mistakes occured.

 

[Trihelios]

OK, so he made an enemy of the merchant guy in example 1, but otherwise why punish him?

That is a fair question. But I'm not suggesting punishing him for his action, he's welcome to chose what his character does. What I was asking was that his actions will have consequences, probably bad ones. I wanted advice on a result that's fair, realistic and not too harsh.

In general I'm against the DM 'punishing' PCs because they don't behave according to the DM's ideals. Your role is to change his alignment to align with his actions, and to portray the NPCs in a believable manner, not to punish him for making 'mistakes'.

Just as a note, we don't use alignment rules (I haven't mentioned the system, because it's a homebrew written by one of my players. I'm running a playtest for him).

The player is welcome to act how he wishes. If he chooses to slit the throats of his fellow soldiers while they're asleep and sell out the fort to the enemy for a big reward, he can and I won't 'punish' him for it.

The reason I describe these two actions as mistakes isn't because I question the morality of them. I question the wisdom of being seen by your war-buddies killing members of your own squad or the wisdom of revealing to someone you were involved in a magical conspiracy to deceive their family.

These seem to me like actions that will cause problems and I want to know what sort of problems people think should occur.

 

[Trihelios]

Well, with the first situation, I've been considering the idea that the merchant has been assosciating with a mage who can change people's shape for more than just to rig a duel. I'm thinking that he's been blackmailed by the invading force to help them get past the defences.

The merchant may have been trying to get involved with the noblewoman in order to acquire some of her clothing (the way the magic works, you shapechange into whoever's clothing you wear for as long as the spell is in effect. The PC wore the smuggler's clothes in the duel in order to take on his form and changed back into his own clothes to return back so he's familiar with how it works).

When he organised for the noblewoman to meet with the PC he would have had a short window during which he knew the noblewoman was out of the castle. He could have taken on her form, gone into the castle and performed the next stage of his plan able to blame it on the noblewoman.

What this means is that the PC is the noblewoman's alibi and has made her aware that the merchant has access to this form of magic. When she gets accused of sabotaging the war effort, thanks to him, she'll know who was really behind it and how. She can direct the investigators to seek out the PC who can prove she's truly innocent.

This way, the PC will be in some danger (he knows the truth, the way the spell works and the identity of the mage, so the merchant will have to try to stop him), but his actions will also be crucial to stopping the merchant's plans and rescuing the noblewoman from false accusation.

Gives him a chance for what should be a fun adventure and he can come out of the whole mess as a hero.