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

[Hippy]

You are having a problem because there is no facade to drop and nothing to repent for.

The PCs are heroes because, for the most part, they do heroic stuff that benefits civilization, like killing monsters and saving towns, etc. If some NPC moron gives them a hard time and the PCs kill them, so be it. Heroes aren't all sunshine and rainbows, and that includes paladins.

IMHO, a DM should never oblige his players to roleplay their PCs as wimps, as some posters are suggesting. PCs being afraid of the cops is wimpy and too 21st century. In real life, you are obliged to tolerate morons so you don't get sued for knocking their teeth out and tossing them into the path of a bus. But D&D isn't real life. In D&D, if an NPC so much as mumbles, "You stink" to a PC, the PC is well within his rights to teach the idiot a lesson. That's what makes D&D fun!

All that a good-aligned PC should do before slaughtering a mouthy NPC is say, "Watch yer mouth." Once. And even the warning is optional. A narrow-eyed glare is sufficient.

If, once warned, the NPC quickly collapses to his knees and begs forgiveness and offers to buy the PC's party a round of beers, then all will probably be forgiven. But if the NPC actually has the AUDACITY to stand his ground, he brings his own doom upon himself.

I think the real question you should be asking yourself is this: Why am I trying to humiliate the PCs over and over? And when the PCs get annoyed by my annoying NPCs, why am I too proud to have my NPCs crap in their pants in terror and beg forgiveness?

In a nutshell, PCs should never have to tolerate annoying NPCs, with the possible exception of old, wrinkly, unarmed female NPC, and even that depends on how annoying she is.

I couldn't disagree more with your statements. Heroes should be just that heroes! The good guys. The guys in white hats (to use an american western film image) Especially the Paladin. They are suppose to be the icon of what is good and just. Bashing an NPC or killing them because they annoy you? Please...In my game the PC would have lost his Paladin status immediately and needed a major atonement.

IMHO most people who run evil campaigns do not run the consequences of the actions such as these remotely accurately. The PCs would be hunted likely for the rest of their lives in a Lawful Good type kingdom. Forcing them to leave permanently (and likely ruining the campaign plans of the DM in the process) Granted I do not know what the overall legal system the DM established, however I would encourage him to talk to his players and explain his discomfort with the situation. If necessary do a reboot of the session(s) that led to the current game derailment.

On a personal note, I never run an evils game because they are the antithesis of heroic. I am Christian and find the idea completely distasteful, personally destructive to the game environment around the table, and the great friendships I have formed with my players. The video game rpgs, that often lack repercussions for evil acts, I believe reinforce the lack of said realistic repercussions in tabletop rpgs. Please understand I am not telling anyone how to run their own personal game, I am only stating my own personal morals on this topic. That said, I hope the advice is useful to you and best of luck in resolving your dilemma.

Hippy

 

[Helmet]

I couldn't disagree more with your statements. Heroes should be just that heroes! The good guys.

I also think heroes should be good guys and the guys in white hats. But remember, if the DM never assailed the manhood of the PCs with an annoying NPC, this issue would never have come up. The DM is being a troublemaker, plain and simple.

If a DM expects every PC to be Sir Lancelot, then he should stick to easily identifiable villains. But if, for example, the DM has an NPC throw a chamberpot of human excrement on the PCs, or the verbal equivalent, then the PCs shouldn't have to smile through their teeth while hoping it won't happen again, fearing somebody might call the cops if they draw their weapons.

The basic function of PCs in D&D is to kill everything that deserves it. The DMs job is to make it clear who deserves it. If the DM has a problem separating his NPCs into who-you-kill and who-you-don't, that is his problem.

The PCs are always the guys in white hats until the DM gets all confused and weepy for his slain NPCs and decides that the PCs are bad people and takes away their white hats. When any DM takes away the white hats, the DM has failed at his job.

The PCs should always have free rein to kill any adversary, not just the scaly ones with horns.

 

[Hippy]

The PCs are always the guys in white hats until the DM gets all confused and weepy for his slain NPCs and decides that the PCs are bad people and takes away their white hats. When any DM takes away the white hats, the DM has failed at his job.

The PCs should always have free rein to kill any adversary, not just the scaly ones with horns.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the DM failed. It seems to me there may have been some miscommunication on the expectations of the game or campaign. But it appears it is two way from the way I am reading it. Which is why I suggested that the DM talk to the players, get their take on the kind of game they want to play. If they want a more aggressive style of play with loose restrictions on alignment morality, and if this is not the DM's cup of tea, then it would be better to end the game before friendships are strained in arguments. If an agreement can be reached, then I would do the "reboot" I suggested above and game on! Just because the DM is not happy with players actions, does not mean he is in the wrong automatically. It looks to me that there may be some blame both ways for the problem, but it likely is not insurmountable.

Cheers!

Hippy

 

[Helmet]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the DM failed. It seems to me there may have been some miscommunication on the expectations of the game or campaign. But it appears it is two way from the way I am reading it. Which is why I suggested that the DM talk to the players, get their take on the kind of game they want to play. If they want a more aggressive style of play with loose restrictions on alignment morality, and if this is not the DM's cup of tea, then it would be better to end the game before friendships are strained in arguments. If an agreement can be reached, then I would do the "reboot" I suggested above and game on! Just because the DM is not happy with players actions, does not mean he is in the wrong automatically. It looks to me that there may be some blame both ways for the problem, but it likely is not insurmountable.

Cheers!

Hippy

Well, the DM has a lot of power. The second he stops creating the types of situations that get on his nerves, the problem is solved and everybody is happy.

It's not like the PCs are raping women, robbing the bank and burning the orphanage. In other words, the players are not trying to run evil PCs. I'm pretty sure the PCs are white-hatted good guys who only want to do good things and occasionally kill the annoying NPCs who humiliates them.

IMHO, it's okay for PCs to have a low tolerance for insults. I think it's cool, and I don't see that as evil so much as trigger-happy.

Am I wrong? Is there no precedent in books and movies for a "good" character to kill people over insults?

(BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult. It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway. It's totally an insult. If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated. Ergo, they can kill him if they want. It's the code of the violent hero.)

 

[Hippy]

IMHO, it's okay for PCs to have a low tolerance for insults. I think it's cool, and I don't see that as evil so much as trigger-happy.

Am I wrong? Is there no precedent in books and movies for a "good" character to kill people over insults?

If they are killing an NPC over an insult, I would consider that an evil act. A "bar fight" or duel to first blood is reasonable given the genre of the game, but killing in my game would be going over the line. In books and movies when this happens I generally would not consider them necessarily the "good guys". Their hat might be kind of gray now.

That again is why I suggested a time out to talk game expectations over and then deciding how to handle the problem. Just as we appear to disagree over what crosses the line, I suspect they have the same problem.

Just my two coppers worth

Hippy

 

[Helmet]

I had a DM who overly humiliated a PC of mine and I couldn't do anything about because of his world's powerful justice system, and I hated it.

I think I'm still annoyed by that, and probably it has effected my point of view a little bit in this thread. (Can you tell? Haha.)

 

[Storm Raven]

Look, it seems pretty clear that you believe that certain players choices should shut the campaign down. I don't. I look for ways to keep fairly challenging and entertaining my players.

I don't see certain choices as shutting the campaign down, I see the campaign world reacting in appropriate ways to the choices made by the characters. What would happen in most campaigns if the typical good-aligned PC heroes heard about a band of four evil creatures roaming about killing people in barfights and killing the agents of the (presumably good-aligned) royal government? In most campaigns, the PCs would decide that this was a situation that they should rectify by eliminating the band of bandits, brigands, cutthroats, or whatever else you want to call them.

Why is it unreasonable to expect the same thing to happen in reverse if the PCs assume the role of the brigands? This is an entirely predictable and reasonable consequence of acting in an evil manner; to wit: you bring down the retribution of good aligned heroes upon your head.

 

[Storm Raven]

Am I wrong? Is there no precedent in books and movies for a "good" character to kill people over insults?

Name some. Then we can see who you think are good heroes who kill people over insults.

(BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult. It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway. It's totally an insult. If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated. Ergo, they can kill him if they want. It's the code of the violent hero.)

The code of evil violent heroes maybe. Good violent heroes? No.

 

[Storm Raven]

But if, for example, the DM has an NPC throw a chamberpot of human excrement on the PCs, or the verbal equivalent, then the PCs shouldn't have to smile through their teeth while hoping it won't happen again, fearing somebody might call the cops if they draw their weapons.

Do you really think that the only possible response a PC has to an insult or slight is to produce their weapons and start stabbing the offenders in the kidneys? When I think of people who react that way, I don't think "hero", I think "psychopath".

 

[Storm Raven]

Saying "the PCs have turned to evil" rather misses the point, because the players haven't roleplayed a turn to evil. I'm sure when the player of the paladin remembers that his paladin is supposed to be a good guy, he has the PC act like a good guy. The evil things the players had the PCs do happened not because the players made a conscious decision to have the PCs do bad things but because the players plain forgot that killing NPCs could be considered murder and evil. In the very sanitized combat of D&D where it's all rolling dice and marking down hitpoints, it's easy for a player to feel no more guilt about killing an NPC than they would about taking a pawn in chess.

No one ever said role-playing a paladin was easy. No one ever said role-playing a hero was easy either. The difference between a hero and a villain is that the hero remembers that things like murder are not appropriate responses in bar fights, and allows this sort of thinking to curtail his range of actions. The villain doesn't. If the player's can't remember this, then they shouldn't pretend to play as heroes, but rather should play what they really are, villains.

And remember, in 3e at least, alignment follows actions. Not the other way around. If the PCs behave in an evil fashion, they are evil, even if they didn't intend to, or "roleplay a turn to evil". An entirely unintentional slide to evil is clearly possible under the alignment guidelines given in the 3e rules.