Bloodthirsty PC's

[Wolf1066]

I specifically told my players when they started my game that it was not going to be a hack-n-slash fest and that there were generally more ways to get things done than by goin' in guns a-blazin'.

I also told them that there are no "goodies" and "baddies" outside of people's own personal opinions - that everyone justifies their own actions in their own ways - even career criminals and corrupt politicians - and they can just as easily be viewed as the "baddies" for attempting to scotch someone's carefully-laid plans.

It seems to have worked - they've only been in one combat situation and I thrust that upon them (they were helping someone and were attacked by organleggers), they've also taken steps to avoid combat. When things got too bad for the organleggers, those still standing surrendered and were taken prisoner until the police arrived - not a thought of "nah, kill 'em anyway".

In the past I've had players just kill everything in sight and one player that insisted on torturing people - to the point that his actions made it impossible for the scenario to continue (he did it publicly and I could not think of any reason why those who witnessed it would ever want to help him or associate with him again. I had a hard enough job dreaming up reasons why they wouldn't just shoot him dead on the spot.)

The game's a lot more fun without the kick-the-door-in-and-start-shooting style of play. The players are wheeling and dealing, forming alliances, meeting interesting people and getting themselves quite a rep. And they also know that if things turn really crappy on them, they have the firepower and the skills to dig their way out - and most likely will have a number of allies helping them out.

I deliberately cast one NPC as suspicious, shady - various rumours abound about what he's up to; questions are raised about where his money goes; what's behind his suave, apparently blameless facade? why does he have fear in his eyes?

Then, the team is approached by him to deliver a package - half a million euro in unmarked, mixed cash - and cautioned that they must take care that it not be intercepted. They are to deliver it to a place in what they know is the Red Light District (which is mostly run by a powerful gang big on vice, extortion, illegal gambling, violence etc) and use a fake name.

They've heard all the rumours - that he's being blackmailed by persons unknown for reasons unknown - and they set off. They get to the place with no problems, are let in, hand over the package from "Mr Jones" and are invited to be shown around.

To their surprise, it is a children's hospital - running on volunteer work and donations from various benefactors (of whom "Mr Jones" is the largest contributor).

They get back to their contact and receive their pay - I handed them an envelope containing 3200 euro (we use pretend money to keep track of funds) and a handwritten note.

On top of the surprise that the clandestine delivery was far more laudible than they would ever have guessed, given the rumours surrounding their "client", there's this seemingly never-ending stream of "200-euro notes" coming out of the envelope and then there's the note - revealing that the person who hired them is the same person for whom some of their friends had been working - the mysterious "Wraith".

One of the players was an utter joy to watch - he went from cynical and "yeah, whatever, it's just business" to "OMFG, it's a children's hospital, maybe this guy isn't a total prick" to gasping as he was counting out the money to laughing hysterically when he read the note and realised who had hired them.

Reward them for playing fair (and not skipping town with half a million euro in untraceable currency)? yes.

Teach them that not everything is as it may seem? Most definitely.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No offense -- by your description it sounds like I'd very much enjoy playing in your game -- but the original post smacks a bit of "You're Doing It Wrong."

The "kick in the door, kill everything and take its stuff" style of play may not be your preferred play style, where every character is a sadistic cold-blooded killer, but it's certainly a valid one. As long as everyone around the table is having fun, should we judge?

D&D means many things to many people, and I feel all play styles are equally valid. Even though there are games I would not personally want to play in as I don't agree with their style of play, it doesn't reduce the fun for those concerned if they enjoy it.

 

[TheYeti1775]

I think this is quite reasonable for a paladin

If Detect_Evil() Then
  Smite()
Else
  Talk()

Could be termed the Miho School of paladin-ing. But I also think other, less militant, styles of paladin are equally reasonable though the former is the only type I've seen played. I, and the rest of my gaming buds, tend toward caricature/satire in our portrayal of character.

Actually you could easily have a Blackguard torment a Paladin under that scenario.
"Honest Officer of the Guard he attacked me for no reason here on the streets of your fine city."
That kind of Paladin play just begs for a DM to turn the PC's into the villains.

 

[Agamon]

No offense -- by your description it sounds like I'd very much enjoy playing in your game -- but the original post smacks a bit of "You're Doing It Wrong."

The "kick in the door, kill everything and take its stuff" style of play may not be your preferred play style, where every character is a sadistic cold-blooded killer, but it's certainly a valid one. As long as everyone around the table is having fun, should we judge?

D&D means many things to many people, and I feel all play styles are equally valid. Even though there are games I would not personally want to play in as I don't agree with their style of play, it doesn't reduce the fun for those concerned if they enjoy it.

Hmmm. I didn't pick that up at all, and i had my BadWrongFun detector in for check up this morning. It seems more of a "if this is a problem for you, here's my solution," not "you foolish DM's that allow this really should do it this way."

And it's great advice for those that feel this is a problem in their game. Wish I had it 20 years ago, I learned it the hard way.

 

[radmod]

As my wife often reminds me: "let them do what they want. It's all supposed to be fun!"

I agree to a point. It depends on the world.
One world I'm currently running is my "God" world where the PCs have just figured out that they are really gods to be. In that world, they can basically do anything, be anything.
Normally, though, I run a somewhat 'realistic' world. In it, there are things you can and cannot be, can do and cannot do, but, mostly, what comes around goes around.
For example, pre-3.5, players would Hold Person a bad guy then smash him in the face, killing him. I said "fine with me" and then killed one of them in that manner. Likewise, fighting three abreast, they all attacked the middle guy, so I started returning the favor. Finally, one guy got the bright idea of occupying a down monster's space then using the spiked combat boots every player wears to essentially kill the guy. That actually worked out because players would then guard down comrades and pull them out or risk instant kills.
I also like well thought out plans of attack. Yet, I've seen PCs take literally hours to plan something but then say "nevermind" and do a frontal assault.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the players want to be bloodthristy, let them but make sure they understand that there are consequences. However, make sure they really, really know it and make sure they follow your rulings. (In my worlds, a pally isn't allowed to auto-attack someone who shows up as evil.)

 

[S'mon]

I haven't seen this as a problem in my games. I've seen players go to considerable effort to take an enemy NPC alive (admittedly a beautiful female NPC!) even when they weren't surrendering, and they pretty much always take prisoners. My last tabletop 4e session, an Ogre (Great Ulfe from Forge of Fury) surrendered to the PCs after they'd killed his Orc allies, there was some debate but they did accept his surrender after he offered to fight alongside them. Typically they eventually say 'leave this place and never return" and let the POW go.

The only time I can recall a prisoner execution, it was by me! We were playing Midnight, our group was sneaking up on some enemy soldiers, we had captured one and my PC Zana Than decided she had to kill the guy to stop the risk of him alerting his comrades. Midnight is a very 'dark' setting, Zana was LG, and this was more of a gut-wrencher (the GM played up the young enemy's puppy-dog look, at least it felt that way) than a casual murder.

Re Paladins & Detect Evil, I'm currently running online City State of the Invincible Overlord, where much of the population and most of the authorities are Lawful Evil, and Good & Evil (and Law and Chaos) are expected to 'just get along' - the LG Paladin who kills someone for detecting as evil will be treated the exact same way as the CE serial killer who murders for kicks.

 

[carmachu]

Their response was that Merrik had deserved what he had gotten, at which the king stormed off (he had no power to do anything to them in the location they were currently in). The people who ruled this area were initially nuetral about the death, but the more the players mentioned that Merrik deserved it, the more perturbed these people became. Eventually, one of them came out with it and told the players that Merrik had changed. He had discovered the “secret” and it had freed him of the will of a dark being (of which the demon they had faced was an aspect).

Essentially, I had provided a “Moral” (not Skill) challenge where the players had their enemy at his deathbed. They could save him, in what would be the gaining of a great ally, and potentially a great friend. Or, they could kill him and one day face (as they did) a father from whom they took a son. Either outcome was equally possible, but not ultimately detrimental to the game. It was a great moment revealing this truth to the players. They were told (by the NPC rulers there) that they did not blame the PC’s – that given what they had experienced, it was a forgivable event – but it was clear to the PC’s that he may not have ‘deserved it’ as much as they liked to believe.

Sorry, I have to quibble. I think that the NPC's were utterly wrong in that regard. He did deserve it. No matter what the secret, ultimately, he's still responsible for his brother's murder and any evil acts he commited. I dont think your characters "failed" at the "moral skill challenge" at all.

Certain acts arent all at the same level of forgiveness. And while mercy does have its great points, there are only certain levels one is willing to extend. Personally I think it was a pretty crappy truth myself.

 

[weem]

Sorry, I have to quibble. I think that the NPC's were utterly wrong in that regard. He did deserve it. No matter what the secret, ultimately, he's still responsible for his brother's murder and any evil acts he commited. I dont think your characters "failed" at the "moral skill challenge" at all.

Certain acts arent all at the same level of forgiveness. And while mercy does have its great points, there are only certain levels one is willing to extend. Personally I think it was a pretty crappy truth myself.

I don't think they "failed" nor did I say they did. Perhaps by saying it was a moral "challenge" it implied that, but this was not the case. It was more of a dilemma that I was curious to see explored.

The player that killed him felt bad later, but NPC's present told him that what he did was absolutely understandable - that he had done nothing wrong.

It's fine you think it was a "crappy truth" but, I think it was just that - the truth - it's what happened. He had been corrupted and used, there's nothing "crappy" about that, or discovering it in the way they did, at least in my opinion (and theirs).

Thought I would drop this in as well - I had posted this on my blog and my player whose character is named "Eddie" (the one who killed Merrik) responded with the following...

And you know Eddie will never be the same after having killed Merrik and learning the truth. He’s going to have to reconcile with the fact that instead of saving lives of good people, he took the life of one.

It was actually the perfect pivotal moment for my character. Had he just acted as he had in the past and spared Merrik’s life, it would have been the end of his downward spiral. He had been through so much, he had so much anger and confusion that he had convinced himself that this was the only way to save the lives of all those people… but he was wrong.

I don’t know if you had intended it this way, based on how I had been playing Eddie leading up to this point or not, but it was very effective.

 

[Wolf1066]

kick in the door and kill everything is indeed a valid style of play and some GMs and players love it. I've played in more than a few of those and had a ball of a time. Great stuff for clearing vast amounts of monsters out of dungeons - not such a great strategy in town.

In my own games, however, I prefer to run a "real-life consequences" sort of thing whereby if the players run around slaughtering every thing in sight, they're going to get a reputation of being murderous and will incur the wrath of various NPCs - which would naturally lead to the party being targeted for elimination.

Once that occurs, there is only so long they can realistically avoid a TPK - dunno about you, but my "willing suspension of disbelief" wears a bit thin the 4th or 5th time the enemies send out another group of faceless mooks that aren't quite good enough to take us instead of sending out their army/elite forces or laying a proper ambush. Smacks too much of crappy TV series to me.

So, my games better suit people who don't want to just kick the door in and kill things, people whose enjoyment of the game rests in the exploration of the game universe and interacting with its inhabitants - there's risk and danger and they carry weapons to defend themselves and occasionally kill.

It's not everyone's style of play but my players enjoy it and enjoy navigating their way through the risks, pitfalls and snares of a dangerous city where they are small fish in very deep, dark waters filled with schools of sharks.

In my campaign, a kick-down-the-door and storm in guns a-blazin' character would very soon be dead or incarcerated. One early PC in the game tortured a female prisoner, much to the disgust of the rest of the team. The prisoner was a gang member the team had captured and was handing over to the police and the PC took it upon himself to torture information out of her. The player was not able to keep playing so the character was written out of the plot by being called away. Later, the party heard that the character had been found beaten almost to death in a manner very much like a gang hit.

 

[carmachu]

It's fine you think it was a "crappy truth" but, I think it was just that - the truth - it's what happened. He had been corrupted and used, there's nothing "crappy" about that, or discovering it in the way they did, at least in my opinion (and theirs).

Except of course, it doesnt change what was done, nor deeds done previously.

Your entitled to yours and theirs, but say one of mine, the barbarian, once a threat to the clan, he ends it. And he certainly was one. Once corrupted, whose to say he wouldnt again?

Thought I would drop this in as well - I had posted this on my blog and my player whose character is named "Eddie" (the one who killed Merrik) responded with the following...

Really doesnt change much.