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

[Storm Raven]

That said, I run a campaign where people kill for honor/pride. Quite frequently. A knight would rather die than let an insult or rudeness left unanswered.

Yes, there are certainly people like that. No one is disputing that fact. Normally, however, we call those who kill people in response to an insult "evil". The fact that they are knights or nobles doesn't make their callous murdering ways any less evil.

 

[Fenes]

Yes, there are certainly people like that. No one is disputing that fact. Normally, however, we call those who kill people in response to an insult "evil". The fact that they are knights or nobles doesn't make their callous murdering ways any less evil.

"Good" in my game is not defined by our modern views, but by medieval/fantasy views. And an insult is enough justification for a duel to the death for a knight, paladin, or other person of honor there. Even justification for killing someone, if the one who gave insult is not of a station that allows a duel.

Yes, a peasant insulting a knight in my game could be killed by said knight or paladin without the gods batting an eye, depending on circumstances.

 

[Storm Raven]

As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.

That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM.

Well yes, but given this group, that may be the preferred option.

The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem. There probably should have been some consequences much eariler in the campaign which would have given the players feedback that would let them know they were on an evil path.

In my experience, the biggest error a lot of DMs make when dealing with the alignment issue is simply to let a lot of stuff slide early until the PCs become so used to engaging in vile behaviour that they are surprised and angry when the DM finally decides to reign them in. If you meak clear early what is evil, and what brings undesired consequences, then there is much less wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Fenes]

Well yes, but given this group, that may be the preferred option.

The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem. There probably should have been some consequences much eariler in the campaign which would have given the players feedback that would let them know they were on an evil path.

In my experience, the biggest error a lot of DMs make when dealing with the alignment issue is simply to let a lot of stuff slide early until the PCs become so used to engaging in vile behaviour that they are surprised and angry when the DM finally decides to reign them in. If you meak clear early what is evil, and what brings undesired consequences, then there is much less wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Or maybe the players simply have another view of what's good and what's evil. It's not as if the modern, western world agrees on what's good and what's evil in every case.

 

[Storm Raven]

"Good" in my game is not defined by our modern views, but by medieval/fantasy views. And an insult is enough justification for a duel to the death for a knight, paladin, or other person of honor there. Even justification for killing someone, if the one who gave insult is not of a station that allows a duel.

Not according to the game rules - "good" is pretty much defined in the PHB. And the defiinition pretty much excludes killing people because they called you a poopy head.

And even in the middle ages, it wasn't "good", and was clearly against the moral code of the dominant religion in Europe to kill peasants over insults. A lot of nobles rationalized their evil activities, but they were still engaged in evil, at least insofar as their purported religion was concerned.

 

[Storm Raven]

Or maybe the players simply have another view of what's good and what's evil. It's not as if the modern, western world agrees on what's good and what's evil in every case.

Which is why the DM needs to not let things slide early, so the PCs will know what is considered good and what is considered evil.

In the case at hand though, I'm not sure there has ever been a culture in which killing the chosen agent of the apparently nonevil king was ever considered anything but evil.

 

[Fenes]

I think that the DM should better check with his or her players before deciding what is good and what's evil in his game. Trying to "teach" players how to act good or evil is often the first step to a collection of "well, before my old group broke up..." stories.

 

[Fenes]

Which is why the DM needs to not let things slide early, so the PCs will know what is considered good and what is considered evil.

In the case at hand though, I'm not sure there has ever been a culture in which killing the chosen agent of the apparently nonevil king was ever considered anything but evil.

Unless, of course, said agent acted in a way that made the killing a question of honor.

 

[LostSoul]

Only unreasonable players would view it the way you have suggested, since it assumes all kinds of wacky mental contortions. The only truly reasonable interpretation a player could draw from the facts given is pretty much:

The players in the game we're discussing have more facts available to them. Let's assume, for the sake of being nice, that they aren't unreasonable players. So why did they do this?

That's where I was coming from.

Looks exactly like that was the argument you were making. Effectively, you seem to be excusing murderous mayhem as "not evil" on the ground that D&D is violent. You may want to clarify your argument if that's not what you intended.

Sure: There's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

 

[Elf Witch]

"Good" in my game is not defined by our modern views, but by medieval/fantasy views. And an insult is enough justification for a duel to the death for a knight, paladin, or other person of honor there. Even justification for killing someone, if the one who gave insult is not of a station that allows a duel.

Yes, a peasant insulting a knight in my game could be killed by said knight or paladin without the gods batting an eye, depending on circumstances.

Honor duels are not what this group of PCs are doing. Honor Duels have rules usually they don't allow the entire party to whack on someone until they are dead and then treat the body the way this group did.

Also this was no commoner or peasant that these PCs killed it was an official of the King.

There really is no way to paint this any other way than to say that the paladin ia not behaving like a paladin and should lose his paladin status and become a blackguard.