Consequences of Heroic Action

[Micp]

hmm... interesting dilemma... we haven't played like that in any of the campaigns i've been in, but it would push the gameplay more in the favor of lawful characters, as opposed to most normal campaigns that tends to be in favor of the chaotic players, only seeing lawful characters as a hindrance to the solution... it would make the PC's have to think more about the consequences of their actions and even the scale quite a bit in the whole lawful/chaotic discussion...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Unless I'm obviously going obviously heroic...

...."no good deed goes unpunished."

At least until the LAST adventure, when the PC's can put 95% of it to right.

 

[Haltherrion]

I've always had fun springing unintended consequences on the players, be it a change in the economy when they flood a town with gold to their actions inadvertently assisting the bad guys. I try not to make all such outcomes bad, that wouldn't be fair but it is amusing to think through the ramifications and let it go where it will.

As for their consideration of consequences, my group is actually pretty reasonable about that. They haven't done anything on a super large scale like freeing the slaves in an entire country but if they rescue a woman from a bad situation they will see her to a better place and try to set her up.

 

[SSquirrel]

Overall, I am in the camp that actions should have consequences, but I try hard not to bore the players to death with those consequences.

You just freed 100 slaves, and we can assume they do ok in life and are happy, or we can micromanage their lives for the next ten sessions.

I know which I would prefer.

I prefer to play out the consequences for players screwing up. Tends to lead to more adventures, in my experience.

...."no good deed goes unpunished."

The players rescue 500 slaves from an evil warlord and scatter his forces. The players bring the slaves back to the nearby town and bid everyone farewell. Of course, this town was 1000 people and just got half again as many people, many of which may not be in good enough shape to work and all of whom need fed.

Bring the players back 1 year later and they find the town nearly abandoned with all sorts of disturbing signs around. The players get captured by the remaining townsfolk. They question what they have done to them and the mayor of the town tells the PCs they are to blame b/c they brought all those slaves there and just left them. People had to leave b/c they couldn't be fed, there were fights and people murdering others for food.

If the players talk their way out, they have a lesson in considering their actions and thinking things thru more thoroughly. If they have to escape, they could risk rewards being posted for them. No good deed goes unpunished indeed

 

[pemerton]

It depends a lot upon the level of trust between DM and players, and bear in mind that the responses DMs give will colour the PCs future actions.

I agree with this.

After defeating the BBEG, if the PCs seem to want to get into "nation building" then raising issues over these changes is kind of the challenge of the whole nation building. Basically, its fodder for adventures (Look what SG-1 did with the Jaffa after defeating the bad guys).

But if the PCs clear out the BBEG, approve one of the locals as good chap to listen to, then let the NPCs slowly build into success and not make a big deal about it.

As a general rule I go for "not making a big deal about it". There are already a lot of elements of a heroic fantasy game that have to be more-or-less ignored if play is to proceed along typical lines - for example, social hierarchies that are pretty objectionable by modern standards, plus the whole "super-hero" conundrum of the heroes mostly fighting other super-baddies rather than doing "real-world" good things like improving food supplies, curing diseases etc.

This is part of the "suspension of disbelief" that players buy into in playing the game.

Introducing economic and social consequences of heroics seems like a way to puncture that suspension of disbelief - in effect, it's undermining the foundational premises of heroic fantasy gaming, namely, that individual heroes fighting super-powered enemies can really make a difference in the world.

Where, in my experience, blowback can work more consistently with that underlying premise is when the PC's heroics cause other supernatural enemies to pay attention to them. So if the PCs free the slaves, they then have to deal with (for example) Asmodeus deciding to step in to try and reestablish the "natural" order of hierarchy and domination. This introduces complications for heroism, without (in effect) telling the players that individual heroics are incapable of achieving good outcomes - because the solution to this sort of complication is even more individual heroics - now we have to wipe out Asmodeus too!

 

[Reynard]

The best way to avoid the consequences of heroic action is to not engage in it.

If the PCs are treasure hunting tomb raiders that come to town to rest and resupply, with no more concern for the flight of the serfs laboring in the fields they pass on their way to the dungeon than for the plight of the mules, it is a non issue.

Not every campaign should be like that, of course. Sometimes, playing an "A-Team" campaign can be great fun. But, if questions about consequences and alignment and social ills and economics got you down, try this: play a good old fashioned dungeon crawl campaign. Not a silly hack and slash Monty Haul satire of the a dungeon crawl campaign, but an honest to goodness mega-dungeon exploration where fortune and glory are the PCs only concerns.

It is as refreshing as it is liberating.

 

[kitsune9]

The best way to avoid the consequences of heroic action is to not engage in it.

This! My fighter is taking his longsword and going home to watch Oprah. Forget about freeing slaves.

 

[Reynard]

This! My fighter is taking his longsword and going home to watch Oprah. Forget about freeing slaves.

If only you'd read past the first sentence...

 

[Coldwyn]

If only you'd read past the first sentence...

Why? What better thing to do with a large chunk of liberated treasure than to buy a house in the free city suburbs, get a decent 42" crystall ball, maybe some new horse-shoes for the SUV? You could even join the local wizard guilds golf club and use that BAB for something.

 

[Janx]

If the players talk their way out, they have a lesson in considering their actions and thinking things thru more thoroughly. If they have to escape, they could risk rewards being posted for them. No good deed goes unpunished indeed

Whats the actual goal of the GM here? Of the players? Are both satisfied?

the GM has basically turned the the PCs from heroes to zeroes. By virtue of DM fiat.

the players may have just wanted to do some good in a world where they can, and the DM not only thwarted it, is discouraging it.

Even in Reynard's post, about "don't be heroes, be treasure hunters". If the DM decides to make negative consequences for the players bringing in all this gold, he's discouraging players from what they wanted to do:
go treasure hunting
stop the bad guys

There's a fine line of course. The GM can't be making things too easy, ignoring obvious consequences, etc. But he does get to choose whether to make things worse for the PCs on a whim.

Deciding to make things significantly worse when the player successfuully executed their game goal is thwarting. And thwarting is generally a bad GM behavior. It's basically saying, "don't do that!" to the players.

So, while it may be realistic to determine that bringing in numerous refugees, mass amounts of gold will impact a society in a potentially devastating way, it's not very fun. And quite possibly not the kind of game your players want to play.