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

[Storm Raven]

I consider the actions of th arviter as they were described (refusing an explanation) as stupid, arrogant and disrespectful.

Really? A group of mercenaries holds your son hostage, refuses to turn him over to you, and then murders you, and you consider the arbiter to be stupid, arrogant, and disrespectful?

The level of silliness in that "logic" tells me you aren't worth bothering with anymore. You clearly have no opinions worth hearing, on any subject.

Plonk.

 

[Elf Witch]

In my game, high level PCs are treated with far more respect by lawmen. That avoids a lot of trouble, and seems to be more logical to me. I at least do not think too many NPCs would want to make high level PCs mad (or make any other hogh level characters mad).

It's a give and take - my PCs don't act like idiot ruffians, my NPCs don't act like that either. Or if they do, consequences happen.

I am confused so I am going to ask do these consquences also happen to to PC who behave like idiot ruffins?

 

[Elf Witch]

I have a question for those who think the arbitor was wrong lets switch the situation around.

An NPC cleric comes to try and heal a woman dying in childbirth he is to late he cast speak to the dead and finds out that the mother does not want the baby to go to the father who is an adventuring PC.

The PC finds out and comes for his child. He refuses to answer the cleric questions on why he wants his child tries to take the child by force and his killed by the NPC.

Is the PC an idiot he is he in the wrong? Was the NPC cleric in the right to slay him?

 

[Storm Raven]

So... Stormraven...

You're saying that when you have a group of five* people gathered to play a game, the goal is to only entertain one of them?

Primarily. The PCs are guests in the GMs sandcastle, that usually he built. The primary person who needs to be entertained to keep the game going is the GM. The PCs enjoyment is secondary, assuming they want to actually continue gaming. Or they can build their own sandcastle and shape it however they want.

So, to continue the party analogy, what kind of drinks do you buy? Five cases of your favorite kind, or a mixed batch (including a case of your favorite drink)?

I buy the drinks I like. If you don't like it, deal with it, bring your own, or don't come.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

SR, weren't you not supposed to be posting in this thread?

 

[Fenes]

I am confused so I am going to ask do these consquences also happen to to PC who behave like idiot ruffins?

Of course. Respect goes both ways.

 

[Fenes]

I have a question for those who think the arbitor was wrong lets switch the situation around.

An NPC cleric comes to try and heal a woman dying in childbirth he is to late he cast speak to the dead and finds out that the mother does not want the baby to go to the father who is an adventuring PC.

The PC finds out and comes for his child. He refuses to answer the cleric questions on why he wants his child tries to take the child by force and his killed by the NPC.

Is the PC an idiot he is he in the wrong? Was the NPC cleric in the right to slay him?

If all it had taken was some explaining, or a well-crafted lie, and the PC was an experienced diplomat/spy/trouble shooter, then yes, he was an idiot. The other cleric may not ahve been in the right, but right or wrong, stupid actions have consequences.

Basically, I expect people not act rudely towards those who can kill them easily, legality issues aside.

 

[Mallus]

Obscured amongst the flame war here is a valid point about story construction. Which I happen to agree with.

You mean the issue of what constitutes 'meaningful choices'? In this case I was framing the issue the issue of choice primarily in terms of the players being able to choose the tone and direction of the campaign. It's their decision to play heroes or villains, fugitives or agents of the state, without prejudice, editorializing or a precipitous and preordained drop in playability. I think it requires some rather circuitous logic to label that 'railroading'.

I realize there are other ways to approach the issue of meaningful choices. Strangely enough, I'm partial to mine.

 

[robertliguori]

I'd just like to ask the people considering the PCs violent thugs to, when they visualise the PCs, include tanks, close air support, ICBMs, a large chemical arsenal, powered armor, and the like to their visualization. Again, PCs past a certain level aren't criminals, they're four-man rogue states. They simply aren't problems that can be solved by hitting them with a hammer, because they can move faster than your hammer and can retaliate with larger and larger acts of brutish thuggery.

In real life if a cop is rude to me I can't just kill him even if I am say head of one of the most powerful crime families or head of a powerful church. If I do there will be consquences. It is just stupid.

Say you're the head of a crime family with your own personal army, which is at least within an order of magnitude of the army of the state you're in. There will be consequenecs, yes, but they will involve things like strongly-worded letters of protest (or alternately, quiet assassination and/or massive first strike scenarios), as opposed to "You're just a punk."

It's hard to visualize this manner of thinking, especially for those of us who grew up in the U.S., where the government will win against pretty much any private agency. I think, for optimal visualization results, these expectations should be used. Say that a group of foreign military agents (in plain-clothes, making it ambiguous whether or not this was black-bag or simply recreational) killed a high-ranking CIA agent in a domestic dispute. Say that said foreign nation had a significant army, a reputation for utter ruthlessness, first-strike capacity, and a stated intention to treat unjustified assaults on its citizens as an act of war. Do you think that the first result of the U.S. government would be to start off by trying to shoot or arrest said agents? I think that, provided additional threat/provocation isn't offered by the agents, we'd start off by trying to find out, in detail, what the hell happened, and would avoid solutions that lead to war.

 

[billd91]

If he has idiots like that arbiter on the payroll, who don't even know how to handle PCs without getting killed, then no, he'll probably be hated by the population ("That despot! He sent us this disrespectful clout, who tried to order our good duke around, and when we defended ourselves, he had the duke hung! To Arms!")

This line of argument is getting so attenuated that it's making little sense. The PCs have no natural constituency like a real Duke would, plus we already know the locals fear them and seem to despise them as well. We know little about their relationship with the king or arbiter but, as bad as that could be, there's going to be no rallying around the PCs in this case. We already know that from the OP.

But your argument does illustrate the difference between a legit Duke and a band of elite, even super-powerful mercenaries. The Duke can probably count on the locals backing him unless he's a real bad despot. Depending on how powerful the domain is in resources, value, men, the king may have to tread lightly around a Duke's privilege, even at the expense of enforcing royal law. But a mercenary group usually has none of that and can not expect to keep whatever they have of it long. Other than the practical considerations of how to deal with them, the king has a much freer hand in what he can do and will face little opposition to enforcing the royal will.