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

[Mallus]

Again, PCs past a certain level aren't criminals, they're four-man rogue states.

Kudos on your phrasing, sir.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Yet another argument that makes no sense.

Plonk.

 

[Fenes]

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.

As the 30 years war showed, those "practical considerations" can be mighty difficult. As mallus and others said, some people see punks, we see rogue states.

 

[Fenes]

Yet another argument that makes no sense.

Plonk.

I think you don't see high-level PCs as others do.

 

[Mallus]

As mallus and others said, some people see punks, we see rogue states.

Also, some people see friends to entertain, others see naughty children in need of valuable lessons.

 

[billd91]

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.

Why are we assuming that the kingdom doesn't have this as well? And given the population disparity between the kingdoms (one with masses and one with 3), why are we assuming that the kingdom wouldn't have the depth of field, so to speak, to bring up an appropriate response to the psychos who started whole affair?

And actually, I expect, in the example, that the US would move to arrest said agents under normal circumstances. They'd have done so against the Soviets any day of the week. If they expected retailation for something so minor, then I would expect the US to engineer the deaths of said agents in ways that couldn't be traced back to the regime. So why would the kingdom not do the same?

 

[billd91]

As the 30 years war showed, those "practical considerations" can be mighty difficult. As mallus and others said, some people see punks, we see rogue states.

And yet they still did it to the exhaustion of Spain's deep coffers, the depopulation of Germany, and the misery of millions with little thought to the consequences. History has other examples as well. Never underestimate the power of national or royal prestige in keeping a losing fight going... not that I would assume this was even a losing fight, quite frankly.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Now explain why (a) the government wouldn't try to punish the gang, and (b) the populace would spontaneously side with the gang members.

(a) because the gang has spent four to five levels publicly running around and solving (some of) the government's problems, primarily through the use of force.

(b) because the gang has spent four to five levels publicly running around and solving (some of) the populace's problems. Also, because the leader of that gang is called, "Robin the Hoodlum"

Later
silver

 

[Elf Witch]

Also, some people see friends to entertain, others see naughty children in need of valuable lessons.

Ignoring the snark aspect of this I have to say this really sums up the extremes going on in this thread.

You have to the one side the DM must entertain his friends and that is the most important thing in the game even if the DM has problems with it to the other extreme if the players act up crush them.

There is a middle ground. One where players and DM both strive to make the game fun and one where consquences for PCs actions both good and bad are part of the game and enjoyed by all.

 

[Chimera]

Also, some people see friends to entertain, others see naughty children in need of valuable lessons.

Whereas I don't get off facilitating my friends acting like violent sociopaths. (My response would pretty much be: "Go play an on-line game.") If I'm trying to run a heroic, or at very least, 'good leaning' game and you start acting like this at my table, I'm very likely to be less than happy and try to put a stop to it. You can see this in whatever terms you have to in order to derive whatever judgement you want to put upon it, but for me, it's "(expletive) people messing with my fun".

I don't necessarily like your judgement here, because you're being negative toward people like me who would be unhappy with their players "being jerks". The game is a joint effort between all people at the table and if a single player or even a preponderance of the players want something other than the GM is willing to give them, it isn't necessarily wrong on the GM's part to be unhappy with players who attempt to force that unwanted behavior on the game.