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

[NilesB]

Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son. Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.

As the PC's probably saw it Vincent was a dangerous psychopath who was trying to kidnap an innocent under their protection.

Vincent did everything in his power to avoid dispelling this impression, short of stabbing the Paladin for wanting confirmation that he meant the child no harm.

 

[haakon1]

We're talking about a highly mobile force that can wreck havoc on a kingdom. The King might very well win, but the kingdom will be suffering.

Perhaps if we're talking super high levels. Personally, I've never played higher than about 15th level in 3e, as it bogs down into Tax Returns and Requests for Proposals above about 12th level, IMHO.

I think you either play a non-standard D&D game, where kingdoms have much greater ressources than in the DMG, or you underestimate the destruction a high-level party can cause.

I'm guessing you play at higher levels than I do. To me, the levels of NPC's in the DMG are actually a bit high, at least in small villages. I generally make up the high level NPC's and warriors independently, and figure out the Commoners and Experts by the rules.

Another factor is that my game world has been played in for 27 years now. There are a lot of retired 1st Edition characters as NPCs, and they serve the powers that be. And it's Greyhawk, so there are all the retired characters from the Lake Geneva campaign, too. If the king hires Erac's Cousin to take you out . . . that gets interesting.

Unless, of course, the King has his own high-level adventurers able to handle such threats, but then - what the heck were the PCs doing then until now, and where have those guys been during the last three crisises?

Easily answered. Of the Lake Geneva campaign NPCs who have ever even peripherally been involved in my campaign:
-- Tenser is in his tower on the Nyr Dyv, doing what archmages do
-- Erac's Cousin is plotting and adventuring across the world
-- Robilar is doing likewise

For the high level retired adventurers from my campaigns (high level meaning 9+ to me, name level in 1st edition)
-- One patrols the Borderlands, alone
-- Others are on a long mission to Blackmoor
-- One is the high priest in the main castle of the ruler. He mostly heals wounded from the war, and makes magic items.
-- One guards the secrets in the basement of the castle and does special missions occasionally.
-- A mage does research and makes items in his own tower.
-- Others are far, far away.

The PCs are needed because most of the country's military and adventuring resources are focused on the war. The PC's go on missions to recover items for the war effort (the magic apples from the Sunless Citadel, the Daoud's Lanthorn from the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, the Cauldron of Plenty) and to deal with insurgencies and other problems that crop up in the absence of the usual troops.

 

[haakon1]

It still comes down to the adventurers - especially if they're above 12th level or so - having a unique degree of personal power that our real world has never had to deal with, so we have no methods in place for it.

Nod, 12th level is about right on where the divide is. For me, it becomes unplayable somewhere slightly north of there -- it's a supers game and it's too complicated to be any fun. For others, I guess it BECOMES playable at those levels.

If Mr Random Mad Bomber can teleport, bounce bullets, and stuff like that then Mr Random Mad Bomber would still be at large no matter the wishes of the State; the State would probably be powerless against him and people would have to accept that fact.

This doesn't follow. If the PC's are dark-suit Spider-man, who's to say there's not a Batman or even a Superman at the King's disposal to take care of such problems? Can't the king light the bat bonfire in such an emergency.

The "PC's can do whatever they want" school seems to think PC's automatically have the overwhelming majority of non-demonic power in a campaign. That doesn't make ring true to me -- a larger and larger share of power, but not all of it. "There's always a bigger fish" makes more sense to me. And the power of a crowd makes sense too.

In our world, multi-billionaire Wall Street wizards like Warren Buffet and George Soros wield incredible amounts of money and power. Soros helped influence the transition of post-Communist countries like Hungary, and he once "broke the pound" from its exchange rate mechanism and helped bring down a British Prime Minister, it's true, but if he murdered a cop or a government official, the UK/EU/Hungary would not fear to go after him because he might cause a run on the pound or euro or florint!

Lack of rules knowledge also helps this. The Archmage might be 22nd level and have a contingency spell on him to teleport him to a safe location when he drops below 10 HP but I bet he doesn't carry that 1500gp statue that has to be on his person (nor the majority of his magic items) with him into the bathtub.

Did you, off the top of your head, know that about contingency? I didn't.

Me neither, but Contingency has never been a popular spell with the folks I game with. <shrug> We're rarely high enough level to get 6th level spells.

Your 0-level maid delivers his wine, then hits him in the stomach and holds him under water. No spellcasting, no holding his breath; three rounds of missing his dump-stat CON saves and he's dead no matter how many hit points he has. I'm sure there's some weird-ass Feat that lets you conjure without speaking but most people aren't going to have all the weird-ass feats that let you do something like that.

Nod, very true. It's not hard to think of ways to kill other than reducing HP.

 

[haakon1]

I can't think of any historical situation in which a ruler (or ruling group) that could not defend itself stayed in power for any appreciable length of time.

Failed states are not uncommon. Somalia is a good example. But Somalia has no particular ruler. And of course the writ of the rulers of countries like Sri Lanka, Burma, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan does not carry to all corners of their alleged domains . . .

But if we're talking a non-failed state, without lawless "tribal areas" or civil wars on, yes, pretty much a ruler must rule to stay ruler.

 

[haakon1]

I usually try to drag many more adventure possibilities across a party's path than they could ever hope to follow up on - the ones they let drop will either (a) fester and get worse, or (b) get solved by another group, who will get the associated fame and rewards.

Interesting . . .

 

[haakon1]

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.

I believe that when players play their pCs in a stupid way there are consquences. I will not shield them from their actions. Not every NPC they meet is going to be nice and polite to them how boring and unrealistic. I don't do it for no reason or just to mess with the players there is always a reason why an NPC would behave this way.

Double nod. Perhaps the arbiter was perceived as rude by the PC's, but if so, it didn't seem like that was the OP's intention as DM. He may just have been playing him as a taciturn, dour kind of cop. Or he may have been kinda lazy about it and not bothered with coming up with dialog to answer the PC's in an interaction with he thought didn't require it, which the players saw as rudeness from the NPC. Who knows?

Truly, I have no idea why the original situation came up at all -- it sounded unusual for D&D. But to me the basic truth is -- party kills cop because they don't like a conversation with him.

 

[haakon1]

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.

You don't fight a Cold War by letting your agents get killed and doing nothing about it. Look at the recent situation where the Soviets . . . err, Russian Federation . . . err, parties unknown poisoned a Russia dissident in London with radioactive chemicals. Did the Brits cower and say "Oh my, I hope Putin doesn't do it again." No, they investigated and got into a diplomatic row with the Russians. Diplomats were expelled. "Cultural exchange missions" were closed, and so on. In the height of the Cold War, a Ruskie spy very likely would have been captured or assassinated in retaliation for messing with London . . . not just expelled.

 

[Fenes]

Our current party is at level 16, and has been at level 14+ for years (We play weekly, but do not give out exp, we only level up when the group decides to, the campaign started back in 2E). It's set in the Forgotten Realms, but with less magic items and mages, and not many if any epic characters. So, the characters are near the top of the "food chain" level-wise.

More important than that however is that they have a very, very good reputation in their country. They battled countless foes of the realm, spoiled plots inside and outside the country, handled diplomatic meetings and put down rebellions. The earned the gratitude of the ruler, and rose in status among the ruling churches, earning titles.

While I am not a "simulation tops everything!" DM, verisimilitude means that unless the group goes directly against the ruler or a church, they can basically do whatever they want. If an NPC is rude to them, especially a foreigner, they could kill said foreigner, and the matter would be handled either by hushing it up, arranging an "it was an accident", or by posthumously condemning the victim. Or by simply ignoring the incident. Or by acepting their deed as justice - after all, they are part of the government. That's in their country, of course. But everyone knows that - and there really are not many who would insult them.

Outside their country, it depends on the situation. When travelling on a diplomatic mission, they have the power of their country behind them (unless they do something really stupid, like starting a war), and if someone is rude or insulting to them, it's usually handled by a duel.

So, if they were in that country from the OP, and the arbiter came to them, and acted in the way described, they'd tell him, quite haughtily, to not mess with them, and to suffer the consequences of attacking not just a representant of the Empire, but also a priestess of one of the ruling churches. If they felt insulted, there'd be a duel challenge, and if refused, most likely the "honorless cur" would be dealt with. And the king of the realm would apologise for having employed a "temporarily insane" idiot. Behind the scenes, there'd be all kind of maneuvers, and some repercussions, but the king would not go to war over this.

But then, the arbiter in my campaign would not have tried to bully them, would probably have been all nice and polite, and gotten the baby without any trouble just for mentioning that he was his father - the group generally respects lawful authorities unless there's something fishy - like said authority refusing to answer basic questions.

I've played the standard campaigns before, where PCs rise in levels, and can flatten mountains, yet are still treated like some dinky mercenaries by nobles. It mostly did not really work out that well, and felt contrived. Once I started adjusting the status of the PCs, and integrating them in the power structure, it went far more smoothly. Power now comes with reputation, respect, status - and responsibility.

The carrot of rewarding PCs with status worked far better than the stick of using high-level NPCs to beat them down. More fun for everyone involved.

And in areas like the City of Brass, the PCs still are pushed around, because they have no weight there. But they know that they can change this.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

You know, this has been gone over many times in many ways in this thread, however, I must ask, does anyone really believe that a person who ends the life of another due simply to the way they addressed them in conversation, is a Hero? Or even a respectable human being? Such actions strike me as those of the worst of humanity, engaging in dominion over others due simply to the fact that they have the power to do so.

As for the rest, the consequences, the fallout, and the retribution, that is entirely dependent on the world the DM has created. In most simulationist and published worlds, the PCs would not survive for long taking such actions. Not all worlds are like this, however, and if the one in question is not, than the PCs essentially have free reign.

 

[Fenes]

You know, this has been gone over many times in many ways in this thread, however, I must ask, does anyone really believe that a person who ends the life of another due simply to the way they addressed them in conversation, is a Hero? Or even a respectable human being? Such actions strike me as those of the worst of humanity, engaging in dominion over others due simply to the fact that they have the power to do so.

I won't call them a hero according to my modern definition, but they are what I see medieval heroes as - ready to defend what they see as their honor at the drop of a hat. Very violent.

Remember the classic "Three Musketeers" movies? D'Artagnan got into three duels in a few minutes, and all over things that were basically nothings. That's how I see D&D heroes, generally.

I don't see human life in medieval times as having the same value as it does today, but as having much less value than your honor.

Usually though, the adventures are set in a realm where people have power over others simply because of their birth - feudalism. If I can accept nobility having priviledges, if I can acept a king as being good, then I can accept heroes who don't value human life that much when weighted against what they consider their honor.