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

[Bardsandsages]

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

The Paladin should have been at a minimum spiritually slapped around by his god after the first fight. It isn't even about alignment. He's a paladin. You don't become a paladin without having some discipline, particularly military discipline. He of all people should have put a stop to the sorcerer tormenting the NPC that they were suppose to be working with.

Unless Vincent is a pedofile or something, there was zero reason for them to kill him. A man finds out he has a son that he didn't know he had, and wants his kid. End of story. The party should not have carte blanche to kill anyone just because they don't like the way the guy talks (which is what it appears they are doing.)

The fact that the town is AFRAID of the party...and again afraid of a paladin...is a bad sign. This isn't an alignment issue, its a bad players running amok because nobody can challenge them issue.

As far as handling the situation, I'd guilt the crap out of the party. Maybe have Vincent come to them as a ghost or something. Turns out Vincent has this gruff facade, but actually wanted to be a good father but the woman thought he wouldn't really care for the boy. The whole "if only they had talked to each other" tragic romance line. Maybe Vincent kept the relationship with the woman a secret because he feared the King would not approve of one of his arbitors having a personal life or something. But make Vincent more sympathetic so that the players realize they screwed up.

Considering that they have been getting away with this behavior without reprecussions to date, I don't know why they would avoid killing the messenger. Unless you have the guy traveling with his small son, and the little boy screaming "Please don't kill my daddy!"

Either you ignore it and let them run amok, or you have there be serious repricussions for what they have done.

 

[LostSoul]

QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?

Probably neutral. I'll bet that they thought Vincent was some kind of evil bad guy who planned on doing something nasty to the child. They killed him because he wouldn't tell them his plans, so they feared the worst. Well, that's my bet.

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

React to the PCs. Don't have any outcome in mind. Just roll with whatever they do. It's an awesome situation.

Oh yeah, and don't take away any powers from the Cleric or Paladin. Maybe try out what I do - let the players have the authority to say when they need to atone.

 

[Ydars]

Final Attack; what are the ages of your players, out of interest? How do YOU feel about what happened?

 

[theredrobedwizard]

In regards to Vincent, I'm going to have to side with the players on principle; if not on methodology. The mother wished for Vincent to not have any dealing with the children, the PCs should have just tried to stop him; probably not with lethal force, but they should have tried to honor her wishes. I hear there are several monasteries and paladin daycamps out there looking for orphans to grow up to be next generation's PCs.

In general, when there's a quiet, stoic NPC that very seldom talks and seems to have an icy heart, he's a bad guy that will betray the party or an elder mentor that will die horribly to spur the party into action.

All in all, if there was an NPC wandering around with my party whose "word was law" and who answered only to the king, I'd be really upset as a player. The heart of adventuring is that you're all basically wandering about, taking polite suggestions and money from those in power until you *are* those in power. When some Emperor's Hand NPC comes swaggering up to your party and says "I will take the boy.", the natural tendency of a good number of groups is going to be "Why?" and then, when no answer is given, "No! Tell us why, and then maybe you can have the boy."

I'm not saying what they did was right, I'm saying that it should have been the expected action.

Any religious PCs whose alignment may be affected by this should have the whole "divine agent in a dream" experience, but not lose any of their powers for an isolated incident.

-----

As for the Sorcerer NPC murdering spree; all the NPC probably would have had to do is ask nicely for the Sorcerer to stop. I bet he didn't, though. I bet he was too "proud" and "manly" to politely ask for anything.

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

Also, what kind of idiocy is it to attack people who are known slaughterers of various sentient creatures?

-TRRW

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning. He is merely amused by the situation. He has been watching them and knows everything about their past and present. He wishes to help them. He tells them that he had come to offer them positions as Arbitors. They know that the training will significantly strengthen their characters, and they will be given land, money and anything they need.

Color me confused. What are these Arbitors? This one is just amused that the PCs killed one of his own? They don't watch out for each other? Also, he has the authority to make them into Arbitors? That authority doesn't reside solely with the king? As roguerouge stated, this sounds like you are rewarding the players for their actions - an odd thing to do if you are unhappy with the way they are behaving.

I don't have anything is particular against the way your players are playing, with the sole exception of a player choosing Paladin as a class to get the benefits of it and apparently ignoring the restrictions that class has to abide by to get those benefits.

I would talk to your players outside of the game to figure out what they want and find a way to play a game you are all comfortable with.

 

[Mark]

There are two ways to deal with this:

1) Out of Character: Talk to your players and determine the tone of the game (or come to a compromise about it). Also, if you are playing with alignment, consider discussing what is considered "evil" or "chaotic".

2) In-Game: Make sure you play up the consequences of their action. If they are just killing people for being rude, or busting out weapons and lethal magic in bar brawls then the law is gonna get on their ass eventually. It can be hard to successfully adventure when you get a bad reputation and can't sell off loot, hire guides and other hirelings, are wanted by the law wherever you go, and have the family/friends/associates of people you've killed trying to kill you all the time.

Also, try not to make too many NPCs into Jerky McJerkytons - though obviously, there will always be some percentage that are.

Nice nutshell. Especially the part about Jerky McJerkytons. I sometimes see DMs fall into a rut when portraying NPCs and Jerky McJerkytons seem to be the easy path they wander down. I think it is part and parcel of DMs falling into the PCs vs. DM trap.

 

[Storm Raven]

Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade

What do you mean "tempt them to do evil"? They don't need tempting. Attacking and killing people because they are rude to you pretty much gets you there. Attacking and killing an envoy of the ruler because he asked to claim his child makes sure you are way over the line (unless, for some odd reason, the ruler and his minions are evil in and of themselves, although the PCs have apparently been working for him anyway, so if they are, then they are already evil).

This isn't really a close question. These PCs have engaged in evil acts. They are murderous criminals at the very least.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have a question do your players wnat to role play or are they more interested in kicking in doors and killings things and taking their loot?

If they are rhe second type then they are not really interested in having to deal with the consquences of their actions. And trying to make them do so is going to give you a group of unhappy players. With players like these I would not put in moral dilemmas. I would just give them a lot of bad guys to take care of.


If they want a more role playing game where actions have consquences then you need to add them. PCs don't live in a vaccum if they are going around killing people then that is going to get around and soon they are going to find themselves either hunted with a huge reward on their head or shunned and noone will give them help.

In the case of Vincent they were honoring what the dead mom wanted. When they tried to stop him who drew weapons first? If it was Vincent then it is not an evil act it could be viewed as self defense. If it was the party then it becomes more tricky.

As a DM I would not have had Vincent fight back or any of the other NPCs they have slaughtered I would have them say I am not going to fiight you. Then if the PCs kill them they have commited murder and bam the paladin loses his powers for the violation.

As long as you have the NPCs fighting back the PCs are going to feel justified killing them.

 

[billd91]

Well, the characters are certainly heading for the outlaws' road, that's for sure.

It's clear the paladin player doesn't either care much for the paladin's behavior code or doesn't really understand it. I'd sit him down and ask him, quite frankly, what the heck he thinks he's doing and how long he expects the character to retain his paladin powers because, right now, the sands on that hourglass are running out quickly.

I'm not really sure what's going on with the other arbitor, Hades. But with that name and his blatant temptations, I'd make him an agent of an evil power or a corrupting devil of some sort and not a "normal" arbitor at all. With a name like that with the offer on the table, as a player, my danger alarms would have been going off in a major way. Do your players even seem to suspect anything along these lines or do they think the offer is legit, has no strings attached, etc.?

I can't see how the PCs can get the reward without killing, imprisoning, or otherwise engineering the disappearance of the townsman. And if I were the DM, I would make sure there were no way they could get the reward without doing just that. This is their acid test. If they butch the townsman for their own ambitions, you have your answer. Murder in the name of ambition? Evil as clear as day.

 

[Thanael]

Probably neutral. I'll bet that they thought Vincent was some kind of evil bad guy who planned on doing something nasty to the child. They killed him because he wouldn't tell them his plans, so they feared the worst. Well, that's my bet.

You got to be kidding.

"He's not telling us his plans! ...Kill him!" Doesn't sound neutral to me. It is also decidedly unlawful which for the paladin is equally important.