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

[robertliguori]

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.

Well, that's the thing. You don't fight a cold war at all with a nation-state that's let you know that they will cheerfully respond to any provocation with carpet-bombing and work up from there; you either keep things diplomatic at almost any cost, or make damn sure you strike first.

That isn't to say that the U.S. wouldn't have replied to the hypothetical nation-state representing the abilities and inclinations of high-level PCs with "Hah! You're bluffing." and said execution; it's simply that a pattern of this behavior would be maladaptive for the continued survival of the U.S. and stability of the campaign world.

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.

Hero is a term of art in D&D, referring to the nature of levels one has taken and (generally) how many of them a given character has. The paladin standing up to defend the peasant village and the blackguard besieging it are both heros; the commoner1 who stands beside the paladin to keep him from being surrounded and fight on a little longer is engaging in heroic action (and damn well should end the battle as a fighter1 if he survives) but is not a hero. This definition does not match up to the generally-accepted real-life definition of heros and heroism. Terms of art are like that.

 

[Mallus]

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?

The heroes of the Iliad would certainly kill someone for the way they addressed them. Usually with a spear. Also, not all PC's are heroic, not even in the Homeric (Greek) sense, though most are in fact heroic in the Homeric (Simpson) sense...

Or even a respectable human being?

We're not talking about human beings, we're talking about (usually badly drawn) fictional characters. That changes the context. Personally, I admire plenty of disrespectable fictional characters; Iago, Travis Bickle, Tony Soprano, Gaius Baltar...

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.

Power fantasies often have an ugly side, which is why we frequently relegate them to fictional environments.

In most simulationist and published worlds, the PCs would not survive for long taking such actions.

There is nothing remotely realistic or simulationist about a setting in which all cop killers are brought to justice, every time, regardless of the circumstances. A setting like that is one dominated by narrative/thematic imperatives --ie, justice always prevails, the 'good guys' always win-- not rigorous simulation.

 

[roguerouge]

Personally, I admire plenty of disrespectable fictional characters; Iago, Travis Bickle, Tony Soprano, Gaius Baltar...

Note: none of these are a paladin or a reasonable facsimile thereof. I like those kinds of characters too, but one of these PCs can't be like those guys.

 

[roguerouge]

...one should not use in-game elements to enforce personal preferences on player behavior. There should not be level 20 paladin police to ensure that the party is heroic. If you want them to be heroic, you should confer with them out of game, ensure that they want to be heroic, then send the succubus and glazebreu brigade to offer them power and shinys* to be nonheroic.

Since we're dealing with a paladin PC here, I'd have a visit from celestials to have an intervention, as they're concerned about the state of his soul. If that fails, well, off to the alternative paladin classes you go!

 

[Mallus]

I like those kinds of characters too, but one of these PCs can't be like those guys.

Not without deliberately breaking the rules, no. But so long as there's group consensus, the rules are meant to be broken. I'd probably make the character into a Blackguard, or an alternate paladin class as you suggested. Though it would be intriguing, from a DM'ing perspective, to try to rationalize things (and reconfigure the surrounding narrative) so that the PC remains a paladin. I think I'd enjoy the challenge.

 

[Fenes]

Not without deliberately breaking the rules, no. But so long as there's group consensus, the rules are meant to be broken. I'd probably make the character into a Blackguard, or an alternate paladin class as you suggested. Though it would be intriguing, from a DM'ing perspective, to try to rationalize things (and reconfigure the surrounding narrative) so that the PC remains a paladin. I think I'd enjoy the challenge.

I'd have no problem with a world where a paladin's code required him or her to defend his or her honor, to the death if needed. "Good" in my game is not what we define as good in our times.

But then, in my campaign, Paladins have a mandate from the gods themselves, which means there are not many who try to abuse them. "It was god's will" is hard to argue with, if the paladin has not fallen from grace.

If a player plays a paladin, I don't try to make them fall, or punish the PC in game, if they are about to commit something I deem evil I'd talk to the player before it happens, since I assume that a paladin has a strong enough sense of what's right and good that he'd not slip into evil without a clear, and informed decision by the player.
On the other hand, paladins are so special in my campaign, most common people rever them as god's champion, they don't see them as stick in the muds, lawful-stupid bullies, etc. My view on paladins are heavily influenced by "The deeds of Paksenarion" and "Oath of Swords", and I try to get the "a paladin's actions are influenced by the gods" vibe going.

 

[Wolfwood2]

You know, there's an easy way for players to get away with doing anything they feel like if all consequences are handled in-game. They can just have their characters committ suicide after every adventure. Doesn't make much difference then if their paladin falls or the DM has a crazed band of high level adventurers after them if the PCs slit their own throats.

Just keep some back-up characters on hand for if your PC gets into a tight spot and you need to have him committ suicide in the middle of a game session. PC suicide- is there any problem it can't solve?

 

[Mallus]

PC suicide- is there any problem it can't solve?

I don't really have an answer for that, but the question's incredibly funny and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter...

 

[Storm Raven]

Though it would be intriguing, from a DM'ing perspective, to try to rationalize things (and reconfigure the surrounding narrative) so that the PC remains a paladin. I think I'd enjoy the challenge.

So now evil actions are actually good? I knew that ignore lists existed for a reason.

Plonk.

 

[Chimera]

So now evil actions are actually good? I knew that ignore lists existed for a reason.

Plonk.

First off, you've blatantly ignored a moderator warning not to post in this thread anymore. Secondly this is the third or fourth "plonk" you've posted here, which is usually an indication that one is now putting the other person on Ignore. Something else not really cool on this board.

Put the keyboard down and back away slowly.