DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[danzig138]

When has *any* adventuring party in a fist fight actually kept it a fist fight? Show of hands?

I'd say that for the group I run for, it's about 50/50 that they'll draw weapons in a fist fight. They know that if they get into a brawl, I won't have opponents who just happen to be level-appropriate, and that if it turns lethal, they may find themselves put to the sword. If they think they can win, the odds increase though. In a game with guns, however, the chances increase even more that they will turn a brawl lethal, and no, I don't know why.

Embrace the concept of evil PCs. It's fun.

I concur. Let them be evil, apply the appropriate consequences, and let things fall where they fall.

Side note, of general interest: there are no friendly brawls in DnD. Any "friendly, unarmed brawl" in DnD will end with people unconcious on the ground. Which is the definition of an unfriendly brawl.

Please don't suffer under the delusion that the way it plays in your games is the way it plays in all games. Those fights I mention above, the 50% that don't end in weapons drawn? Those often end in ales, tall tales, and whores, or at leasr gruding respct, with all kinds of people still up and conscious.

As others have mentioned, in a few games it is simply, kick in the door, take the treasure, and party at the tavern afterwards. It really sounds like this is the type of game your players are engaging in from what you have said so far. Those loutish NPCs are starting a brawl with us after we played pranks on them, and beating us? Screw that, we pull weapons and kick their ass!

As you note, these kids of games can be great fun, but for those kinds of games, the Players should still pick appropriate characters types - if you want to play a game where you get to go around killing things at the exhalation of a breath, don't play a Paladin or some noble, supposed do-gooder cleric type.

How many DMs acknowledge the power that PCs wield? How many DMs let NPCs react to that power in a consistent way, and how many simply try to have NPCS bully PCs around no matter the PCs' level?

I've always wanted to play in a game like the one you describe, you know, the kind where the PCs have little neon signs above their heads that read "I'm Bob the PC; 5th Level Special Snowflake with 10 XP to go until 6th. Approach at your own risk." Alas, no one has run that kind of game for me yet. I want my sign to be purple. You can have purple neon, right?

 

[Kishin]

They killed an agent of the King.

I doubt the King is going to be very pleased with that, heroes or not.

Besides, heroes have a tendency get villified very quickly by authority figures when they start messing with said authority figure. Oh, sure, you were useful THEN, but NOW? Now you're a problem starter.

Embrace the concept of evil PCs. It's fun.

Maybe he's not comfortable with running that sort of game. True, the players have their stake in what sort of game is being played, and you should cater to this to some degree, but should the DM also have to suffer through something he's really opposed to? its a group experience, and though he's outnumbered, the DM shouldn't be less important in that regard.

Also, 10 to 1 these 'evil pcs' would be flabbergasted to see the consequences of wanton murder rain down upon them.

In short, I don't see making players deal with the realistic consequences of their actions as 'punishing' them for divergent playstyles. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

 

[Fenes]

I've always wanted to play in a game like the one you describe, you know, the kind where the PCs have little neon signs above their heads that read "I'm Bob the PC; 5th Level Special Snowflake with 10 XP to go until 6th. Approach at your own risk." Alas, no one has run that kind of game for me yet. I want my sign to be purple. You can have purple neon, right?

You never played in a game where what PCs did actually had a meaning? You never played in a game where PCs that slew a dragon were known and famous for it? You never played a character that was known as „Eric the Brave, slayer of Wyrms, Defender of Highkeep, Bane of the Orcs“? Where peasants and nobles knew that Martin the Mage banished a Pit Fiend back to the Abyyss and destroyed a coven of Hags the months before, levelling an entire hill with his spells?

Do you really want to tell me that in your games, no matter what the PCs do, what realms they save, what Dragons they slay, the NPCs still treat them as commoners without a reputation?

In my games, PCs do get a reputation, and most NPCs react accordingly. Even if they are in the right, they'd still be polite, and respectful, just like I expect PCs to act when confronting powers that can kill them easily. Yes, that does mean that the more powerful the PCs get, the more they get away with as well - just as NPCs can get away with a lot if they are powerful enough.

Call that "neon sign style", I call it "actions have consequences - for PCs and NPCs"

 

[Fenes]

They killed an agent of the King.

I doubt the King is going to be very pleased with that, heroes or not.

Besides, heroes have a tendency get villified very quickly by authority figures when they start messing with said authority figure. Oh, sure, you were useful THEN, but NOW? Now you're a problem starter.

Maybe he's not comfortable with running that sort of game. True, the players have their stake in what sort of game is being played, and you should cater to this to some degree, but should the DM also have to suffer through something he's really opposed to? its a group experience, and though he's outnumbered, the DM shouldn't be less important in that regard.

Also, 10 to 1 these 'evil pcs' would be flabbergasted to see the consequences of wanton murder rain down upon them.

In short, I don't see making players deal with the realistic consequences of their actions as 'punishing' them for divergent playstyles. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

1. Realism can go both ways. History shows that Kings (especially weaker ones) often treaded very lightly when dealing with powerful nobles, so as to avoid a rebellion that would wreck the realm. An underling acting rudely toward a duke, f.e., could very well end up sacrificed by the king to placate the duke. How often do we read about plots where the PCs prove some misdeed of a powerful noble, and he gets away still by virtue of his connections and power? Same should apply to the PCs if they have enough power.

2. Changes to a campaign of that scope should be communicated. I agree completely that the DM should have fun running the game, but he should not change the game without checking. Often, people will play differently according to the campaign style.

 

[Nomad4life]

Honestly, the PC actions in this case strike me as more stupid than evil.

Therefore, the solution is quite simple: Forget good. Forget evil. Run a “stupid” game, since that’s what the players seem to want anyway. Their actions will undoubtably attract the attention of Moronus, God of Stupid, who will bless them with his Gifts of Stupid and relieve them of cumbersome intelligence points. All of their alignments change to “Stupid” and from that moment on, they only get XP for doing stupid things. The paladin becomes a Champion of Stupid and gets to keep his abilities (modified, of course; Smite Smart and Protection From Sense, etc...) Moronus also gives them a copy of his latest stupid jokebook, because you know, he’s a big self-promoter like that.


No? Oh, well.

In any case, I don’t think the problem here is with alignment, so you might not be able to fix it with alignment-shaped bandages.

 

[Fenes]

Another way to reduce the "NPC Killing Sprees" is to treat the PCs like you want your NPCs being treated. Respect shown is often shown back. NPC interaction is also a good opportunity to reward the PCs (and players) for acts you like.

If your PCs do a good deed, have it recognised. Have NPCs talk about it, and praise them for it. You get often better results by rewarding desired behaviour than by punishing undesired behaviour.

If they act less than good, show reactions in a less confrontational way. Don't have people try to kill them, but have children show fear, hiding away, have peasants be afraid, nobles avoiding them (politely) and so on.

Above all though, talk with the players, and explain your problem with their actions.

 

[roguerouge]

At this point in the debate, I thought that this might be a valuable contribution.

srd:

...Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

...“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

...Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

..."Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

...Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience....

...Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. ... Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized....

 

[Elf Witch]

The rest of the thread has merely been commentary.

(I'm not entirely kidding. Here, at least, Hong spoke truth. Push PCs and they *will* push back. Possibly preemptively)

And you know what else is true push at the DM and he will push back too.

If I was DMing and the players acted like these players I would be tempted to bring down the DM hammer on them. Let's be honest a DM at any time can killl the PCs. Then of course there would be hard feelings all around so most likey I wouldn't do it.

I would just quit and tell the players that this kind of game is not fun for me and they need to find a DM who does not mind playing like this.

 

[Elf Witch]

Please keep in mind that for the average kingdom, trying to treat high-level PCs as wanted criminals is akin to Mexico declaring war on the USA over a border incident. Mexico may be completely without blame in the border incident, but it's still not exactly smart or anything but suicidal.

Past a certain level, PCs become, in the standard D&D world, powers of their own, and should get treated as such.

I don't buy this that everyone will bow and scapre before PCs just because they are powerful.

Do I think low level unimportant people like tavern keepers who know how powerful the pCs are would treat them warily yes I do.

But that is not always true of a high ranking official or a noble who is secure in his position. Because if the world has laws and standing armies then just killing a mouthy noble should have severe consquences to the PCs who do it.

At 15 level pCs are almost unstoppable by any town guard but what would be the sense of slaying all them just because you can when they come to arrest you for starting a
bar brawl.

I played the 15 level fighter and I had great fun smashing up a bar over an insult to my country. It was all subdual damage. When the town guard showed up I was trapped and could not get through them unless I fought them to. I don't play my characters as stupid or metagame hey I am a high level PC I am untouchable. I surrendered spent the night in jail singing drunken songs with my former brawlers and got released in the AM after I paid a fine.

I could have fought by way out but then we would have to have left town without finishing our mission to the town.

In the game world you meet all kinds of NPCs some are polite some are not. Unless you are playing evil PCs who don't care about the consquences and you do want role playing in your game then the answer is not kill everyone who insults you or pisses you off.

Saying its the dMs fault because not all NPCs bow and cower at the sight of the PCs is wrong. It is players playing their PCs as chaotic stupid.

As I said before if my plaers wnated to behave like this I would have consquences like their reputation would grow about their murderous ways. Nobody would willing help them, they would not be welcome in lawful kingdoms and they would get the attention of a band of good adventurers who would be high enough level to bring them to justice.

 

[roguerouge]

At the end of these 5 pages, my opinion has not really changed. I think that the OP should just switch the paladin's class to Paladin of Freedom and keep the game going with the Outlaw theme. No hurt feelings, there's consequences for actions, no arguing over evil/good alignment issues, everybody gets to keep their characters, plot is generated, and that's clearly the game the players wan. Everybody wins.