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

[Final Attack]

DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' players

[long post]

Foreword: I am not strict with alignments. As I see alignments they are more or less 'goals'. A small act of evil doesn't make someone evil. However I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it). I want them to either drop the facsade or repent, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to do it in my situation.


Situation

I am currently playing a long standing campaign with 3 friends. Together they are a Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter/hexblade/sorcerer. They have moved their way up in the ranks of the local army starting as pleb novices all the way to kingdom heroes. Their history however is sordid.

Before they became heroes they were on a mission to a Northern Island with 3 other NPCs guards. One in particular was gruff and just didn't like them. Because of this conflict the sorcerer would taunt him with dancing lights in their room. This of course set off a fight between the two groups which started off non-leathal (NPCs). But the PCs thinking "I'd rather die than lose a fist fight" pulled out weapons and started swinging. The NPCs then pull out their weapons and they fight back with lethal force and lose. It resulted in the death of the NPCs all except one, before it was stopped.

The remaining NPC didn't like the PCs but he decided to keep his mouth shut about the PCs killing the other fellow soilders.

Now as a DM I let it slide ... though something similar has happened again.

***

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).

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.

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.

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?

****

My now preposed plan:

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.

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?

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

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

Since two of the two characters in question have deities watching over them, have they had any warnings or admonitions against continuing on the path they are treading towards corruption? This is assuming the Paladin is a normal LG Paladin, and the Cleric is following a good deity, of course.

Before you proceed with any course of action, I would recommend that you confer with your players beforehand and explain that, due to the wanton acts of murder the PCs have indulged in, they are becoming, or are already, Evil. Ask if this is intentional on their parts, and if they wish to continue down the road they have currently set for themselves.

I would say that this is a good idea due to the fact that many players view having an alignment switch to Evil to be a punishment. This is doubly true with a Paladin in your party, assuming core rules. Make certain that the direction the campaign goes in from this point is one your players are comfortable with.

 

[Final Attack]

"I don't like the way he looked at me ..." ~cuts NPC throat~

My players do not like NPCs who are rude to them. To the point that they will instigate fights and then kill the NPCs.

As the DM should I just avoid making NPCs rude?

Or is there some way I can train my players to be more accepting? *cracks DM whip*

I figure this is a common thing in DnD (well from the players I've seen) as players don't want to see their characters be bested by any stupid NPC. They would sooner kill a man than lose a fist fight.

 

[el-remmen]

There are two ways to deal with this:

1) Out of Character: Talk to your players and determine the tone of the game (or come to a compromise about it). Also, if you are playing with alignment, consider discussing what is considered "evil" or "chaotic".

2) In-Game: Make sure you play up the consequences of their action. If they are just killing people for being rude, or busting out weapons and lethal magic in bar brawls then the law is gonna get on their ass eventually. It can be hard to successfully adventure when you get a bad reputation and can't sell off loot, hire guides and other hirelings, are wanted by the law wherever you go, and have the family/friends/associates of people you've killed trying to kill you all the time.

Also, try not to make too many NPCs into Jerky McJerkytons - though obviously, there will always be some percentage that are.

 

[Quartz]

'My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my brother. Prepare to die.'

Alternatively, simply have their next victim secretly be a 20th level LE monk who's take a Vow of Poverty - substitute Vile feats for Exalted ones. He'll beat them to an inch of their lives and then tell them they're not worth killing.

But why are the NPCs rude in the first place?

 

[phindar]

This is a fairly common PC trait, and one I used to be guilty of until I started running games. Seeing from the other side of the screen how PC's treat NPC's really turned me around. Nowadays, I love it when NPC's get the upper hand.

But short of making your players run a game for you and then punking their NPC's, I'm not sure there is any easy answer to this one. I think the best method would be to simply bring up your concerns to the group in an open and non-confrontational manner.

Typically, the PC-on-NPC anomosity stems out of the competative nature of the game; NPC's are there to beat or be beaten by the PC's. In a dungeon this is largely true, outside of combat not so much, but the players might not see a difference. Plus, any player who has spent any time in a game with a GM who has had favored GMPC's or otherwise untouchable NPC's will likely carry a strong distrust/hatred of all NPC's for many years and many gaming groups to come. Having a NPC be rude in your game may be all that is needed to set this buried frustration off.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

... PC's do stuff...

QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?
Maybe. At the least it is not an act of good. You can argue that killing someone who wants to take his son is entitled to do so, especially if the mother is dead. The players would argue that the dying woman did not want him to, and that they were acting on her command / desire.

Given your proposed plan though, it seems you already made up your mind on this, and just want to have someone on the board to agree with it. Nothing wrong with that though, since by posting you also suggest your open to the idea that your first impulse might not be the right one.

QUESTION 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?
In general, unless you and your players get a great deal of enjoyment out of contentious alignment debates, my advice is to do nothing about the players murdering NPCs that are in no way critical to the plot. The only exception to that would be Paladins and Monks if the act would damage the alignment, and in that case, do not dance around the issue. Before they perform the act, tell them 'do this and you are in breach of your alignment'.

More generally, as long as they are not causing you to seriously derail your adventure plans, then why worry about it?

If the Arbiter is important to the plot as you say, I think your general plan is fine. The NPC's will make it clear to the players that they think they are all murderous scum and want nothing more to do with them. They may even inform the players of this, and tell them that any aid (selling them supplies, giving them an inn room) to the players makes them guilty of treason by association. I figure that killing this Arbiter ought to be the sort of thing where the players either have to answer to the king or leave the country.

I do think that having the arbiter offer is something that will only make sense of the offer is completely bogus. As a player, if I killed one arbiter and another one said "here, have some delicious candy for commiting that murder, but only if you go commit another" would have me suspicious.

QUESTION 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?
Depends on your players. It is entirely possible that they wont remember the bit about the townsmen who left to go alert the authorities. It is also possible that your players just wont care and will go and murder that townsmen.

 

[Delta]

Depends on what kind of game you'd like to run.

If the game is wide-open, then allow the PCs' alignments to slide over into Chaos/Evil territory. They're quite possibly powerful enough that they become the untouchable, all-feared anti-heroes in the campaign region. (Like a black knight, or the mexican bandit gang in any western.)

 

[el-remmen]

I am going to merge this thread with the other by the same OP on basically the same topic. - El.

 

[roguerouge]

[long post]

Foreword: I am not strict with alignments. As I see alignments they are more or less 'goals'. A small act of evil doesn't make someone evil. However I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it).

When a PC's alignment shades towards evil or chaos, it doesn't particularly matter for a fighter or a sorcerer. You have their rep influence the NPCs' reactions, but otherwise, lenient works. When there's a paladin or a cleric in the party, alignment has to be at least somewhat descriptive as well as a goal to aspire to. Your PCs are a classic example of why.

Situation

... Their history however is sordid.

Before they became heroes they were on a mission to a Northern Island with 3 other NPCs guards. One in particular was gruff and just didn't like them. Because of this conflict the sorcerer would taunt him with dancing lights in their room. This of course set off a fight between the two groups which started off non-leathal (NPCs). But the PCs thinking "I'd rather die than lose a fist fight" pulled out weapons and started swinging. The NPCs then pull out their weapons and they fight back with lethal force and lose. It resulted in the death of the NPCs all except one, before it was stopped.

The remaining NPC didn't like the PCs but he decided to keep his mouth shut about the PCs killing the other fellow soilders.

Now as a DM I let it slide ... though something similar has happened again.

This is classic "low self-esteem bully" type of evil. Which seemingly went unpunished by the gods and the army in this world. So, of course, it happened again.

I'd suggest that you shouldn't have let it slide as it set a precedent that the party can murder with impunity and that the world doesn't even try to discipline its criminals. How effectively did they cover up their crime? How on earth did the gods let this character BECOME a paladin after not repenting his murder? Why didn't the NPC report them to the authorities once he was safe?

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).

...

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.

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?

That's irrelevant: it's not a lawful act, which should ding the paladin hard.

Whether or not it's evil depends on their intent, on whether they had strong evidence that this guy would have been an abusive father (and not just a cold, distant one), and on whether there were less lethal means available to them to resolve the problem. I'm guessing that it's evil based on their history, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Everyone saw them do this? And they expect to get away with it? Are they crazy? Killing the idiot who yells at the heavily armed psychopaths doesn't solve this problem for them. Eventually the authorities are going to wonder where their arbiter is. And they'll investigate with the full might of the law behind it. And they will find a populace that will talk to the authorities.

And, guess what, no matter what the authorities thought of the arbiter, you cannot let important men in your employ be slaughtered or else you won't be in power for very long. Murder one arbiter because you don't like his decisions and you assault the entire arbiter system.

So put me down as thinking that this Hades, whatever his alignment, is not going to REWARD the PCs for their actions, because it directly impacts his power as an arbiter.

And if you reward the PLAYERS' actions here, you're just going to continue to have a party of little dictators running around.

Look: Clearly the players WANT TO BE OUTLAWS and explore shades of gray. Let them. Change the paladin's alignment, make him a paladin of slaughter or freedom and change the campaign accordingly:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm