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

[Elf Witch]

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.

This is always gets me. That the DM had better check with his players yada yada yada. How about the players check with the DM on how his world works.

For example in your world it is okay for a knight to kill a peasant if he feels he has been insulted that is not haw things work in my world. DMs make their worlds different so I think players and DMs should talk about things like this before the game starts. But if a dM says this is an evil act in my world then the players should accept it. If they don't like it aand it is a deal breaker then they should find another game.

I will admit I am also tired of the attidue that the DM is the one who always has to bend to accomadate his players game styles, tastes and wants. DMs do the most work they should at least be able to have some input into the fun as well as having fun themselves.

I think it should be a two way street. DMs should try and tailor the game to the players but players should also give the DM a break and let them have some fun as well. I as a DM would not have fun if I had a player playing a cleric of certain gods or a paladin like a thug.

 

[Mallus]

This really shouldn't be about the morality of mouthy peasant-killing or the rather nice Antigonean feel of the conflict between the dead mother and the terse, metahuman agent of the State, it should be about how the OP can provide fun and appropriate future challenges to the PC's in light of what they done.

In RPG play, 'consequence' are just another word for 'challenges', unless, of course, your DM'ing style depends heavily on passing judgment on the players at your table.

(Mind you, I'm not endorsing all manner of juvenile depravity that players delight to wallow in. Just some.)

 

[Kraydak]

This is always gets me. That the DM had better check with his players yada yada yada. How about the players check with the DM on how his world works.

For example in your world it is okay for a knight to kill a peasant if he feels he has been insulted that is not haw things work in my world. DMs make their worlds different so I think players and DMs should talk about things like this before the game starts. But if a dM says this is an evil act in my world then the players should accept it. If they don't like it aand it is a deal breaker then they should find another game.

In part this is true. But DMs do need to remember that (I am borrowing from someone's sig here) so much as 5th level PCs are the equivalent of a flagless, paranoid, bloodthirsty *armor battalion*. NPCs should in general be *very* polite to PCs, and while you might think that silent and secretive (and effectively bullying) towards PCs is cool, in practice it amounts to wandering up to the commander of said armor battalion with a TOW negligently over your shoulder and flipping him off. *If* you have a whole ton of allies around (i.e. you are high level) you might get away with it. For awhile.

It isn't "cool". Unless you think deathwishes are cool. Remember that in DnD, offense trumps defense, so people who are threatened will tend to strike first. Be glad they so much as asked questions.

 

[Desdichado]

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

What?! That's absurd. Preferred by whom, exactly? The original poster (DM?) The players? Or you?

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.

No, that's not the real key at all. The real key is talking to your players out of character and getting your expectations on the same page. In game aligning amounts to nothing more than "you better toe the line, or you're going to be consistently punished for not doing things my way." That's 100% the way to absolutely SUCK as a GM. I guarantee it.

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.

Maybe you should make a list of acceptable and unacceptable actions in game. Surely, your players won't want to do anything that's not on your list.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I think it should be a two way street. DMs should try and tailor the game to the players but players should also give the DM a break and let them have some fun as well. I as a DM would not have fun if I had a player playing a cleric of certain gods or a paladin like a thug.

There should be communication about play style. I suspect that there was little, if any, to start off with, though, in the example given, which is where the predicament is coming from, compounded with errors in judgement on both sides of the screen (bringing greatswords to a fistfight, assuming PCs will just hand over a child against the prevailing wishes of the mother, etc).

Brad

 

[Mallus]

The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem.

But isn't excusing murderous mayhem what the alignment system was originally for???

 

[Mallus]

NPCs should in general be *very* polite to PCs...

"Always remember to be polite to the man-tank" is handy advice...

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

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.

Calling someone out in a duel was NOT considered evil, and until fairly recently, people killed in duels were either morons for taking on someone above their skill level, or glamorized/idolized by the general public.

There were insults that could be said that couldn't be borne, including disparations against one's linage, bride/wife/betrothed, social standing, personal habits, and honor/bravery.

If you walked up to a knight and accussed him of mating with the corpses of dead men and having bad breath from drinking the seed of farm horses with breakfast, he'd challenge you to a duel on the spot, IF he didn't just knock your head off.

Guess who is evil in that situation?

You. Not him for defending personal and family honor, but you, for disparaging him.

You need to seriously take a good look at what was considered evil and good back in the day, and maybe even go back over history again. Focus on the reasons and outcomes and public perceptions of duels.

Oh, by the way, how did you pen issue ever pan out?

 

[Ydars]

Hence the old chinese saying "talk softly but carry a big stick". Ahem.

Seriously, gaming is a consensus pastime and the DM always has to mold his vision to one that is pleasing and engaging to the players.

You just need to deal with this out of game, and try and set up some common expectations and all should be well.

Having said this, NO DM should be forced to run games where the PCs behaviour is so bad that he feels uncomfortable. If the players want to indulge in true depravity then I say, "Go DM yourself."

I also like the comments made on this thread about Medieval belief systems. I know where the poster is coming from, but only a robber-knight or a trail-bastion (outlaw) would take "honor" to this extreme with peasants (at least in England). With equals, fine, but only the Samurai treated peasents with such distain and even then, only in certain periods of Japanese history.

Nevertheless, I used to love trying to explore the sensibilities of another age and if you can find gamers who also like this, it can be very engaging indeed. Problem is, my current group have no interest in this at all.

Still; if it works for you and your players.......................go for it.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

Even if the agent did that. I can't think of any western society in which killing the agent of the ruler was ever considered a valid nonevil response in the circumstances described, even if they insulted someone. And in the case presented, it is hard to see an "honor" question in the situation. Face it, the PCs in question are simply murderous thugs.

And I can't think of any western society in which the prevailing religion held that killing to preserve one's honor was a valid response under the religious codes prevailing at the time. As a practical matter, maybe, but that doesn't make the action "good", even by the standards of the time.