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

[haakon1]

Which is basically the flipside of making sure not to play the people with blue circles around their feet as annoying.

What are blue circles around their feet?

When I'm DM, folks only come on the game board when there's a fight going down. And non-PC's are usually represented by different colored d6's, rather than minis with color-coded bases . . . I'm so primitive.

 

[haakon1]

Like I said before, monarchy qua monarchy isn't evil, and democracy qua democracy isn't good. You can have a good and just king, who voluntarily limits the scope of his authority and rules fairly and without undue preference, and you can have a soceity in which 80% cheerfully repeatedly vote to harass, imprison, and murder a numerically-inferior underclass.

Thanks for saying this. I was letting it go as I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you are correct. Real world examples of the former (good king/unelected traditional ruler) would be the current King of Bhutan or the pre-1959 Dalai Lama, and of the later (evil rulers who are the people's choice) would be pre-1994 South Africa, or if that doesn't count because only a minority of the population could vote, current day Iran (Ahmedinejad is a more-or-less freely elected leader; it's true there's also an unelected Supreme Leader, but the face guy doing all the crazy talk, officially in charge day-to-day, and driving his "peaceful nuclear program" is an elected official who needs to stand for re-election in 2009 and has only a narrow, run-off election majority. Weird, I know.).

 

[Arnwyn]

Well, according to the majority of posters on this thread protecting an infant from abduction is an unforgivably malign act.

Correction: According to the "majority" of posters on this thread abducting an infant from it's father and police and then murdering said father and police is a somewhat evil act. Not sure what you're talking about (making up?).

The PCs Had been warned that Vincent was a potential danger to the infants.

Not in the OP. According to the OP, the mother "wants to keep it a secret from him". Suggesting anything else is simply making things up. Please don't do that.


Oh, and:

Who is the "we" in this "our"?

It may not be realistic, but I didn't sign on to play a Reality Roleplaying Game.

And please don't play Socratic Garbage with me. When I can see you loading the question, you're not loading it very well.

This.

Guess what? I have good kings and knights, yet no 'feudalism' in its full technical definition, combined with 21st century social morality, too. It works for me and my particular group (and that's all that matters, of course). Who knows whether it would work for the OP, but it's out there.

 

[Chimera]

If we are applying modern values, then the paladin would be forced to champion democracy, and oppose kings (with the exception of those kings who are just representative monarchs without any power).

This I think is an unfortunate artifact of modern western civilization.

In a world with wide disparities in power between individuals (I mean active "Blast with Lightning Bolts" power) and potent MONSTERS roaming the countryside, with large numbers of different races with vastly different ideas of right and wrong; the ideal of democratic government is not necessarily the highest good.

"Um, Mr. 20th level Cleric, sir? We all voted that YOU go out and kill the big horrible nasty."
"Sorry schlub, I vote that I go over there and let the big nasty eat you."
"But we voted. You're breaking the law!"
"There won't be any law if the nasty eats you. Ok, how about another vote. IF I kill the nasty, I get to be King. And if you don't agree to my terms, I take a hike. Deal?"
(pause and large amounts of whispering)
"Yes, your majesty."

 

[billd91]

If we are applying modern values, then the paladin would be forced to champion democracy, and oppose kings (with the exception of those kings who are just representative monarchs without any power).

On that, we disagree completely. As long as the king respects and defends the human rights of his people, then I fail to see how it would be considered "evil" even by modern Western society. I'd say that modern Western society would see a democratic version of the same general society as "better" but paladins are hardly required to make choices between two good things simply because one is more participatory and, by some assessments, superior. Good is good enough.

 

[Elf Witch]

We haven't been given enough information to be sure, but what has been presented offers space for the theory that the Arbiters (and possibly the king they serve) are somewhere between hopelessly self-interested neutral and full-on evil. In fact, when I run into a character named Hades, I generally assume that he will not be a merry, joyous fellow, prone to random outbursts of petting puppies and kissing babies as the sheer positive force of Goodness overwhelms him with its majesty. If Vincent had dropped the mysterious stoic act to explain himself, even to claim paternal love and deflect dark suspicions would leave a whole lot space for "He and the system he embodies are evil. Roll initiative."

FYI the OP said that Hades is not the guys name just the nickname he thinks of him as.

Trying to aviod real life politics here but the whole idea that anything other than a democracy can be evil an a democracy can't does not ring true to me.

The whole popular vote VS the electoral vote is an example some people believe that it can be misused.

Back before moderen voting practices and machines voting boxes could be stuffed there are a lot of ways to subvert demoracy.

Some democracies only allow certain sections of the population to vote.

By today's standards we look at feudal systems as barbaric. But as bill91 pointed out they were in some ways the best security for the people back then.

I think one reason we have alignment issues is that some people want a modern view point of good and evil in their game and others wnat a more historical view. Neither is wrong way to play. But everybody needs to be on the same page especially if there are paladins in the party.

Some players might want to play a more historical correct viking raider while others would feel uncomfortable and would rather play a more sanitized version.

 

[Chimera]

Some players might want to play a more historical correct viking raider while others would feel uncomfortable and would rather play a more sanitized version.

Now I think you're being silly. I don't know anyone who would want to play a bunch of Vikings that go around cleaning places.

 

[roguerouge]

Well, according to the majority of posters on this thread protecting an infant from abduction is an unforgivably malign act.

Paladins often get into trouble in many campaigns for picking the lesser evil, instead of finding the good solution.

That's not my point. My point is that it is clearly a huge CHAOTIC action. This paladin has not been LAWFUL, which is equally important to whether or not he's been good or evil. He was not lawful when he brought a sword to a fist fight. Not when he covered up that murder. Not when he refused an order from a duly appointed member of the law. He wasn't lawful when he failed to even try to work within the system to achieve his allegedly good aims. Not when he slaughtered said law enforcer. Not when he attempted to cover up the crime by slicing off the head and burning the body. There's been no time when this paladin has acted as Lawful Anything, even Lawful Stupid.

I've been exceedingly generous on whether this was an evil act or not by suggesting that Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter would be an appropriate choice for the PC now. But the one thing this paladin is NOT is Lawful. And that means a class change or an atonement from celestials or religious superiors.

 

[roguerouge]

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?

The NPC cleric is in the wrong. In civilized areas, lethal force is the last resort, not the first. He didn't go to the cops. He didn't report this to his superiors. He didn't have any information that indicated the baby was in trouble. He didn't gather more background information. He didn't cast Zone of Truth. He didn't cast Augury or Commune or Detect Evil. He didn't strike to subdue. And then he tried to cover up what he did rather than proclaim to the rooftops that he heroically saved this child.

His actions are chaotic. His actions may be evil or may be good, but he has no idea which it is because he never bothered to get more information. As a cleric, the state of his very soul now depends on utter chance as to whether he unjustifiably killed an evil person or unjustifiably killed a good person.

But make no mistake: his actions, good or evil, are not justified. And they cannot be considered lawful, which may be an important point, depending on his god's alignment.

 

[roguerouge]

Whereas I don't get off facilitating my friends acting like violent sociopaths. ...

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.

QFT.