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

[Fenes]

What I am saying is that if we use modern values to judge what's good and what's evil in a campaign, then we should go through with it, and apply it to everything, not just to killing for honor.

 

[roguerouge]

... and the lack of mother would just cause them to assume the mother died in childbirth....

No child that I know would let something that important stay an assumption. They can be pretty persistent and intuitive.

And once they ask, the paladin can look into their innocent and completely trusting eyes and ... lie, do a white lie, or tell the horrific truth about his actions.

And if he doesn't chose the latter course, it's only a matter of time before someone (an enemy, a relative of the arbiter, a witness, a court official) "accidentally" lets slip about what their adopted father actually did. It may take years but the truth will out... especially if the children, once they're old enough, use divination magic.

And then the DM has an origin story for two villains. "A Sins of the Past" story would be a great campaign-ender, frankly.

 

[Kalis]

No child that I know would let something that important stay an assumption. They can be pretty persistent and intuitive.

I was talking about the hypothetical villagers of a hypothetical village that the pcs move to.

And once they ask, the paladin can look into their innocent and completely trusting eyes and ... lie, do a white lie, or tell the horrific truth about his actions.

What lie? The mother did die in childbirth.

And if he doesn't chose the latter course, it's only a matter of time before someone (an enemy, a relative of the arbiter, a witness, a court official) "accidentally" lets slip about what their adopted father actually did.

There is only really two witnesses, a villager and another arbiter(who is amused by the whole situation, which paints arbiters in a bad light). The other arbiter wants to recruit them as arbiters, so he should be willing to kill the witness himself(because that is how arbiters roll, being the pillars of law and good they are) to protect what he perceives as potential allies.

It may take years but the truth will out... especially if the children, once they're old enough, use divination magic.

Again, what would cause the children to suspect? The mother did die in childbirth, and a paladin should love two children he swore to protect enough that they would never doubt he is their father. He was late in arriving at the mother's side, so he and his cleric friend couldn't cast magic to help her. After speaking with her through magic, the paladin was told to take care of the children, so he does his best to honor the mother's wishes. A faithful account of what happened, without actually telling the children what went on(a Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father moment)

And then the DM has an origin story for two villains. "A Sins of the Past" story would be a great campaign-ender, frankly.

I don't see two children being raised by a paladin as turning into villains. Your just stretching for anything.

 

[Andor]

Some call it "tender sensibilities", some call it honor. And keeping your honor by killing is considered the right thing to do in far too many real world socieites, so I would dare to assume it's not too far out for a paladin either.

Which is the crux of this discussion. For me, being rude is enough to warrant getting killed in most of my medieval and sword&sorcery settings. Usually in a duel, but if that's refused, people may just attack the "honorless cur".

A fighter might cut someone down for an insult, sure. A Paladin? Not so much, although I could see a (non-lethal damage only) beating being issued to an uppity peasant.

And that's the important point. Your honor demands you answer insults from your equals and inferiors. If the king says you look like a bucket of **** you smile and take it. These guys may have been kingdom level heros but slaying the king's personal agent is usually considered high treason. Possibly he needed the kings permission to duel at all. And it wasn't an honor duel in any event, the party as a whole cut him down, yes? That's murder however you put it.

 

[Fenes]

A fighter might cut someone down for an insult, sure. A Paladin? Not so much, although I could see a (non-lethal damage only) beating being issued to an uppity peasant.

And that's the important point. Your honor demands you answer insults from your equals and inferiors. If the king says you look like a bucket of **** you smile and take it. These guys may have been kingdom level heros but slaying the king's personal agent is usually considered high treason. Possibly he needed the kings permission to duel at all. And it wasn't an honor duel in any event, the party as a whole cut him down, yes? That's murder however you put it.

Noble gets insulted, duel is either refused or not possible because the insulting man is of too low station, noble sends his entourage to kill insulting man and joins in.

Works.

Murder? According to modern values, of course. According to campaign values? Depends.

 

[Mallus]

The DM has expectations of the players, the players see the situation a certain way, the NPCs think the situation is different, the board posters almost all think their interpretation contains the essential nature of the real situation . . .

Some of us posters didn't give a flying frak about the essential moral nature of the situation (thought it is interesting to play the rationalization game to see how many different stories a DM could spin from the incident).

Some of us suggested running with player's choices and trying to make a fun campaign out of them, unless, of course, the result was simply too unpalatable to the DM, in which case the they should talk things over openly and out-of-game with the players, preferably while pub-crawling.

Some of us also kinda-sorta asked the implicit questions: "How much of a DM's enjoyment is rooted in being in control of the campaigns play style/tone?" and "To what extent, as DM, are you willing to sacrifice your own play style/tonal preferences in order to entertain players with differing preferences?", or more simply "How much of a DM's enjoyment comes simply from entertaining their players?".

 

[roguerouge]

You ask what would cause the children to suspect when I suggested that they couldn't possibly cover up their crime. Let's turn to the OP:

The town is afraid of them and nobody says anything as they kill the Arbitor but they know the seriousness of the situation and remain quiet. Except one. He yells, "The king will hear about this" and stalks off heading to Thoa (where the king is). ...

Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning.

So, the entire town knows.

When this number of people know, a conspiracy of silence is unlikely to hold long term. That means that if this situation doesn't spiral out of control early on, the kids are going to find out, either from an enemy of the PC, a concerned citizen, the cleric, or simply through a bardic knowledge or Knowledge: local or divination spell.

And, as for your Darth Vader analogy... well, Luke did end up finding out the real story, didn't he? (Not that that's particularly relevant here.)

 

[haakon1]

I enjoyed this post.

Thanks. Gamers on the internet are an oddly interesting group to discuss many subjects with.

 

[haakon1]

Democracy is a relatively new social concept. (a good one, mind you, I like it a lot) So, did evil rule the world before democracy took root and saved us all? There can be good without democracy, and there can be evil within democracy. I'd explain my point further, but there's no way I could stay within the "no politics" rule on the boards here.

Democracy is "new" within the history of our species, but only in the sense that steel is new. It's been around a long time, in different variations. The first democratic states (with slavery, and with no female subjects) were ancient Greek city states such as Athens, circa 2700 years ago. These were direct democracies (the people vote), not republican democracies (the people elect representatives who vote).

Democratic traditions sprang up independently in ancient Iceland (~1000 years ago).

However, modern representative democracies all trace back to three related roots -- the English Civil War in the 1640s, the American Revolution starting in 1776, and the French Revolution starting in 1789, each of which sought inspiration in the democracy of the classical world.

Most modern democracies copy some or all of their features from these three countries, mixing and matching in interesting ways. For example, federal countries like Canada and Germany often US copy ideas like the Senate representing states from the US constitution, while imperially-inclined countries like post-Communist Russia often copy the French/US model of a strong, directly elected king-like President, but with the French addition of a weak Prime Minister elected from the lower house to deal with the more grubby affairs of day-to-day management.

 

[billd91]

Murder? According to modern values, of course. According to campaign values? Depends.

Murder doesn't depend solely on values. It depends on the law. While that's campaign dependent too, it's a far different spin from just relying on values.