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

[Ydars]

Warlord Ralts; it depends on the country and the period.

If you tried to fight a duel with a serf in England for much of the Medieval period, everyone would have thought you a knave and a bully, not matter what the peasant had done. Later on, when weapons training became more common place, you might have got knocked on your backside attacking a peasent, because some were highly skilled, especially with quarterstaves and so duels of the type you describe became common.

I certainly agree that going out of your way to insult a knight would have been VERY stupid in any country at any time in history.

But this is NOT what we are talking about. The first instance described in this thread involves the PC wizard taunting a man just for not particularly engaging with the party. Then the party turned a brawl into a deadly fight.

THEY; the PCs, have behaved WITHOUT any honor of any kind, leaving aside the good/evil problem. To attack someone you know you can defeat, for no other reason than to demonstrate your power, is to lack any concept of honor.

And STORM RAVEN is right; to attack an agent of the King is to attack the King himself. Only powerful nobles or those with whom the King could not risk war would even think of such a thing.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Warlord Ralts; it depends on the country and the period.

If you tried to fight a duel with a serf in England for much of the Medieval period, everyone would have thought you a knave and a bully, not matter what the peasant had done. Later on, when weapons training became more common place, you might have got knocked on your backside attacking a peasent, because some were highly skilled, especially with quarterstaves and so duels of the type you describe became common.

In a magical/psionic society, attacking random people could prove downright deadly too. That peasant may very well crush the knight's brain and leave it oozing out of his ears.

I certainly agree that going out of your way to insult a knight would have been VERY stupid in any country at any time in history.

But this is NOT what we are talking about. The first instance described in this thread involves the PC wizard taunting a man just for not particularly engaging with the party. Then the party turned a brawl into a deadly fight.

Heh, they call that "murder" and paladins and clerics of good gods may find themselves stripped completely of all powers.

THEY; the PCs, have behaved WITHOUT any honor of any kind, leaving aside the good/evil problem. To attack someone you know you can defeat, for no other reason than to demonstrate your power, is to lack any concept of honor.

Oh, completely.

And STORM RAVEN is right; to attack an agent of the King is to attack the King himself. Only powerful nobles or those with whom the King could not risk war would even think of such a thing.

Very true. Like the old mantra goes: "An attack upon the King's Men is an assault upon the King himself."


But, to blanketly label anyone who responds to a duel challenge, regardless of apparent skill level or social standing, as evil, is just plain wrong.

Most serfs/peasants would NEVER say the kinds of duel provoking statements that I used for an example, and one who did obviously has a death wish or wants to be beaten within an inch of his life and spend some time in the stocks.

But in the original example, the PC's are definitely heading down the evil tracks on a runaway freight train.

 

[Ydars]

Warlord Ralt; Man you are not wrong there! They are inside the Darth Vader suit with the headpiece on the way dowwwwwwwnnn.

 

[Desdichado]

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

Huh. I never knew Teddy Roosevelt was Chinese.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

OK, first thing first, the OP has admitting he is not strict with alignments (first sentence of his post) but let's take a look at a few things:

Now, the first fight could have been blown off/ignored due to whatever reasons. The PC's were too important/powerful to worry about a couple of mooks, so we'll just ignore it. All it does is show that the PC's would rather die than back down. So, let's get it on.

Vincent is an "arbitor". "Arbitors" are personal agents of the king whom have undergone 'special treatment' to enhance their abilities. Basically he is powerful. Arbitors also answer ONLY to the king and have right to kill (think old samurai). He is cold, short with words, and acts like his word is law (mainly because it is).

OK, we're dealing with more than a knight, we are dealing with an extension of the King's will, the force of the crown.

The PCs witness a birth of two children. The mother dies during the birthing, and the cleric communes with dead to ask her about what she wants done with the children. He discovers that the father of the children is Vincent, and that she wants to keep it a secret from him.
She says, "Don't let Vincent find out". Vincent finds out. He comes to collect one of the children. He says, "I will take the boy." The PCs try to talk him out of it and question his motives, but he doesn't see the need to explain himself to them. "I will take the boy" He repeats.

Thus, it is law, merely because his word is law, his words are the King's words. Uh-oh...

PCs attack and kill Vincent in battle. Not only do they do that, but the Paladin severs his head quickly after the battle. Then they burn the body.

OK, while an evil "gray area" due to the fact that they are preventing the last wishes of the mother from being negated, this was not a lawful action. It may or may not have been good, depending on what kind of motives Vincent had.

But, an argument could be made that once Vincent found out, the mother's request was broken.

Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son. Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.

QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?

Evil, maybe.
Unlawful: Absolutely.

That spells trouble for the Paladin.

Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade, as they are clearly acting on their own impulses, and not on goodness or law.

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). If the king DOES hear about this they will be in very big trouble, and will be banished if they are lucky.

If they kill this peasant, then they are doing so to cover what happened, making the murder of the peasant AND the murder of Vincent into an evil act. (They obviously knew it was wrong, which is why they are trying to cover up their misdeeds)

Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning. He is merely amused by the situation. He has been watching them and knows everything about their past and present. He wishes to help them. He tells them that he had come to offer them positions as Arbitors. They know that the training will significantly strengthen their characters, and they will be given land, money and anything they need.

The problem is a simple townsman is headed to tell the king that they have killed Vincent. If they 'stop' this townsman their problem is solved and the reward will be theirs.

Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?

Let them make their own bed. If they kill the peasant, strip the paladin of his paladin powers (maybe secretly replace them with Blackguard powers slowly but surely) and maybe have the cleric lose access to some of his spells, or his healing not work on the party and himself, as a sign of disfavor from his God.

Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?

Anything they do, besides try to persuade the peasant with non-threatening words, will be covering up their crime, and even persuasion is covering up their crime.

From the picture you've painted us, they'll just kill him. Once they do that, they may recieve their reward, but they'll be raubitters and black knights. Lead them into evil, and have Hades open the door and guide the way.

If done right, this could lead into an evil coup against the king.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired. Almost every society condemned duels under almost all of these circumstances - and tightly controlled when those duels that were allowed were conducted. Even under Scandanavian pre-Christian culture when dueling was a way to gain wealth, those who engaged in duels were generally considered to be engaged in wrongdoing.

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.

Nope. Under the religious codes of the dominant religion in Europe at the time, he's evil. You can contort all you want, but it doesn't change this. Just because something may be accepted as a practical matter because of the power of those doing it does not mean that it is considered moral to do so. In point of fact, there are many writings throughout the historical period roundly condemning on moral grounds things like duels, killing for honor's sake, and all sort of other brutal activities. There are almost none defending them.

 

[Desdichado]

I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired.

Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural iro·nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirōnia, from eirōn dissembler
Date: 1502
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony
2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony


Definition 3a (1), example: Storm Raven's knowledge of history is sadly lacking. The normal or expected result is that he says, oh, OK, and goes and does some research. The ironic result is that he says Warlord Ralts' knowledge of history is sadly lacking, when in this case Warlord Ralts is actually 100% correct.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Yeah, because the nonevil response to someone flipping you off is to kill them.

Seriously, killing someone who annoys or insults you because you are powerful enough to get away with it is pretty much a textbook definition of "evil" as described in the game books, and through most of western morality. You may want to play a "might makes right" kind of game, but that doesn't mean that you aren't evil.

The alignment system is supposed to proviede a check on the murderous rampages of the players, to prevent them from wantonly killing peasants, city watchmen, and merchants. Saying "those merchants better be polite because we'll kill them otherwise" basically tags the PCs as being on the "evil" end of that spectrum, with all the attendant negative consequences such a choice might incur.

 

[Storm Raven]

Definition 3a (1), example: Storm Raven's knowledge of history is sadly lacking. The normal or expected result is that he says, oh, OK, and goes and does some research. The ironic result is that he says Warlord Ralts' knowledge of history is sadly lacking, when in this case Warlord Ralts is actually 100% correct.

No, he's actually wrong. He's correct that dueling was common. He's incorrect that dueling and other brutal activities were ever considered moral or good. One only has to look at the writings left to us by the wide variety of religious leaders condemning dueling, killing peasants, and other nasty behavior to figure this out. It is common for people to think "hey, many knights were murderous thugs, so that must have been considered "good" in their day". The problem is, this is completely wrong. Many knights were murderous thugs. They were roundly criticized as being evil, vile, and sinners as a result.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired. Almost every society condemned duels under almost all of these circumstances - and tightly controlled when those duels that were allowed were conducted. Even under Scandanavian pre-Christian culture when dueling was a way to gain wealth, those who engaged in duels were generally considered to be engaged in wrongdoing.



Nope. Under the religious codes of the dominant religion in Europe at the time, he's evil. You can contort all you want, but it doesn't change this. Just because something may be accepted as a practical matter because of the power of those doing it does not mean that it is considered moral to do so. In point of fact, there are many writings throughout the historical period roundly condemning on moral grounds things like duels, killing for honor's sake, and all sort of other brutal activities. There are almost none defending them.

Nicely done.

Despite the legends of duels fought, despite the high frequency of duels, apparently there are almost none defending them?

OK then....

Feuds in the medieval period occurred when people attempted to settle disputes and exact revenge for insults through "private vengeance," rather than by going to the authorities and entrudting them to settle the matter. Judicial duels, on the other hand, were official acts, during which both parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) fought their grievances out on the battle field with swords in front of a judge. At times, a ruling prince and witnesses would also be present. In either of these cases, whether it was a feud or a judicial duel, the winner, or victor, was considered to have been in the right.

Looks like Judicial Duels were OK... But that isn't quite what you were saying, is it? How about we look deeper?

Although it cannot be said that duels sprang from a single cause, Billacois does assert that "it was a short step from the revelation of bravery in a tournament to the affirmation of honour through the duel (Billacois, 16)." However, whereas tournaments were often officially organized by the Court, duels never took place without a personal a cause.

As Frevert states, "Duels were duels of honor in which the participants engaged for the purpose of demonstrating their sense of honor rather than for the purpose of achieving a definite result. It mattered not who was the fastest on the draw, or who dealt the most powerful blows; all that counted was the fact that two opponents braved a possibly fatal encounter, thus demonstrating that they placed greater value upon their "honour" than upon their lives."

Most societies did not condemn dueling, and the victor of a duel was regarded not as a murderer but as a hero, his social status often increased.

Dueling is the tie of society. . . . No virtue . . . proved half so instrumental in the civilizing of mankind.

Bernard Mandeville[1]
Physician Philosopher (1670-1733)

After the collapse of Rome, the use of court-supervised judicial duels spread throughout Europe, gradually replacing trial by ordeal and simple ambush as means of settling disputes. Duels were preferable to open warfare between nobles or low ambush.

Shall we keep going, or do you withdraw your spurious and rashly stated claim?