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

[roguerouge]

I am currently playing a long standing campaign with 3 friends. Together they are a Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter/hexblade/sorcerer.

A hexblade and a paladin? That should have been a warning sign.

 

[Midknightsun]

I'm of the camp that the PCs acted foolishly, arrogoantly, and more than a little evil. To say that a grumpy or rude personality is an open invitation to kill someone is just trying to justify an evil action, and to say that powerful characters are less subject to alignment because of this is just plain wrong. . .but I'm sure it is a lot of evil characters would do. If good and evil just become scribbles on a sheet, whats the point of having them? By stretching the definition of both to justify any action the player wants for their character, they've pretty much destroyed any meaning in good or evil, and in this case lawful or chaotic as well.

Though as a DM I do lay down my expectations of general behaviors and what alignment means before a campaign, there's always some sort of situation that comes up with specific players that causes someone to go on an unjustified killing spree and rationalize it away later. These players I talk to and try to get to work with me in the campaign. And believe me, I'm super flexible, just not a push over. The ones who just can't no longer play in our group. Its that simple.

In the arbiter example, there were bunches of things the PCs could have done other than just kill the guy. Knock him out at leave-- if they didnt feel comfortable giving him the baby-- and probably go to the King with their dilemma being lawful types, for example.

Acting evil as they did I think it would be fitting for the DM to apply the appropriate consequences for their actions. the problem is with some players, any type of reaction from the DM that is not in their favor can be seen as retaliation, which puts the DM in a no win situation where he must cater to their ego-masturbations, or be seen as a "jerk". Honestly, I have no problem at ths point in my gaming career with having a talk with the players after such a scene as the OP described, and if we were unable to come to an understanding, let them find another DM. No gaming is far better than bad gaming.

I think picking a lawful good aligned character and then pulling off an action like the OP described, as a player, is little different than a DM stating you're going to be playing in a game where you're all clerics. Then as the game is starting, telling you none of you have spells because the gods just died. There are certain expectations given with specific labels that if not met cause hard feelings on both ends.

 

[The Eternal GM]

Now now, hexblades need not be evil...

Anyway, while I'm a bit late to this party, I do have a suggestion.

You say you're not a big stickler for alignment anyway, and having a hard time steering the players with a moral compass?

So don't bother.

Usually when alignment debates arise, it's in conjunction with religious concerns too. Your issue is about the characters and the politics. So I'd say...

Just go with the flow.

If the player's are cold blooded, let them be. If this brings them to a sticky end, then it does. If the internal logic of your setting states that the King is gonna be p*ssed at them... Then he's p*ssed at them!

Let them deal with the consequences.

On the one hand, maybe they'll go for it. Action and reaction could define how their party rises and falls, or is forced to seek shelter from this new twist, or whatever.

On the other hand, they're abusing the alignments in order to just run roughshod over your game world without having to pay the price for it. Which suggests that you either should let them, because it's what they want to do... Or bring them in line with OOC discussion, since anyone trying to reign them in IC is likely to be found with their head on a pike.

Personal experience? If the players have a play-for-keeps attitude like this, introduce NPCs and game elements that mirror it. Most of my players either settle down or get into that style of play. Not quite adversarial with the GM, but essentially realising that NPCs can draw lines in the sand too!

 

[LostSoul]

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.

That's because you know that it would be jackassery of the highest order. You know that, because D&D grants the DM special authority, you can't use your "DM hammer" when the players make a choice you don't like. You know that it's an out of game issue, one that should be dealt with out of game.

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.

Yeah, out of game issue, out of game response.

 

[Fenes]

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.

That depends on the power level in question. Would it have severe consequences for the duke of the realm if a knight gets killed after offending him?

And there's a rather large difference between bowing and scraping, and treating high level adventurers according to the power they represent.

Would a noble mouth off to the archmage ruler of a free city? Would the king go to war over said noble ending up dead? Would said noble try to bully the envoy of the Barbarian hordelands? Would the king go to war over the noble ending up dead?

So why would they try to treat the PC archmage, the PC party like that?

Again, in a standard D&D world, high-level PCs are powers of their own. They may be brutal, and even evil, but that doesn't mean a realm goes to war over a noble that was not as smart and diplomatic as he should have been.

Most of this can usually be avoided simply by having the NPCs not act like jerks. Fair? Maybe not. But it avoids a lot of trouble, and is therefore the smart course of action, both for a DM as well as for smart NPCs.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Maybe in your campaigns, but in mine, the PCs are usually just one group among many, and until they are truly high level (say 15th+) they aren't usually strong enough to even consider acting without carefully balancing the consequences.

 

[prospero63]

QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?

Yes. That paladin should have been stripped of his abilities after the first fight.

My now preposed plan:

Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade, as they are clearly acting on their own impulses, and not on goodness or law.

Tempt them? They are a walking party of neutral evil right now. No temptation needed.

Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?

Dispense with the pretense and just run an evil campaign.

Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?

I think perhaps the only person who thinks the PC's will avoid killing the townsman is you. I have zero doubt that they are going to do exactly that.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Perhaps you mean to say "Paladin of Slaughter"?

That would seem to fit a band of murdering cutthroats better.

 

[prospero63]

Sounds like you have a case of players suffering from Chaotic Stupidity.

QFT

 

[Kishin]

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.

Oh, agreed. But I think a simple explanation to the PCs that such actions often bring dire consequences is sufficient in that case.