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

[endlessruin]

I had a group of players like this when I first began playing. I will admit my players and I were all a bit immature at the time and new to role playing. My players would basically kill anyone who crossed them, they didn't like or that said or did something they weren't happy with. One of the characters even killed his own brother to get his gear. This wasn't that brother you always hated, more like the older brother who nurtured and supported you. Eventually I got tired of their crap and just let them have it. One of them got killed and the other nearly died in a tussle with someone who just happened to be bigger and badder than they were. In fact it was the first time I can remember them really fleeing a fight. The others were hunted for years in game by this guy and it made them regret ever screwing with people. I encourage my players to have a good time and act as freely as they like. I just make sure they realize there are consequences for their actions. I also like to ask question that provoke role playing ,"Would a Cleric of [insert faith here] do that?" or "As a Paladin how might this decision affect you?". I do it for all classes, races, cultures. It sounds like your players have alignments that have drifted towards Chaotic Stupid or Stupid Evil. They aren't thinking any of their actions through nor considering any of the npc's when they act. It is impossible to create a reasonable story when the characters make every effort to destroy it.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

Picking a fight with someone who is otherwise neutral because you "just didn't like them" is both evil and chaotic. IMHO, turning a non-lethal combat into a lethal one because you cannot win a non-lethal combat (and there are no real negative consequences of losing the combat) is also evil.

Pride is generally not an acceptable reason for murder unless there is a strong cultural background behind it, in which case there is normally a strict procedure that must be followed. Some cultures would actually consider pride to be a sin of deadly proportions.

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.

Here, there PCs are torn between two "good" sides (the mother and the Arbitor). Picking one side over the other is neither good nor evil. However, using violence as the first possible way of dealing with the situation (instead of being diplomatic, stealing the child, going to the king or other higher power for arbitration) is tending toward the evil side of things. Desacrating a body for no purpose other than your own enjoyment is definetally evil. Unless there is some tradition of beheading and burning people instead of having their bodies buried or returned to their families, I would consider this evil.

Also, killing an officer of the law that you follow, regardless of whether it is done for evil purposes or not, is chaotic.

 

[Dimitri Mazieres]

[...] 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 is a decidedly evil act. The PCs didn't have any right or reason whatsoever to kill the NPC. The paladin should lose his paladin status and powers, as well as the cleric, depending on his alignment and deity.

As for alignment change, the overall attitude you describe is certainly chaotic ("my way or the high way") and the unjustified killing of (so far) innocent people is evil. As stated before, pride is not a valid justification for such behavior (and what you describe looks more like blood lust to me). You should decide whether these episodes were isolated, or if they're part of a common trend that justifies the alignment change.

Oh, and tell your players to grow up.

 

[Quartz]

If they've killed the King's Man, then they're going to be declared outlaws.

 

[blargney the second]

No idea about evilness, but the illegality is irrefutable. They're criminals. Start putting up bounty notices and bounty hunters everywhere they go.

 

[Dark Mistress]

I did read all the replies but heres my take.

Personally i think ever example you gave was a act of evil. There was never a reason they had to kill the people in any of the above situations.

In my mind they should get warnings from their gods the cleric and pally anyways and if they keep it up. Have the gods strip them of their power. The cleric can attone or find a god more suited to his outlook. Same with the pally, perhaps becoming a black guard and then you can run a evil based game. Which sounds like the players would enjoy.

 

[carmachu]

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?

Yes, its an evil act. Yes your party is walking teh dark side.

sooner or later their actions will catch up with them. guards....if they kill them then bounty hunters then if they die, perhaps adventurers.

 

[Desdichado]

Embrace the concept of evil PCs. It's fun.

My characters just bought and sacrificed three slaves because they heard the best diviner in town used anthropomancy. Another one stole the eyes of some poor innocent girl because they gave a minor benefit (although to be fair; he gave her his in return, at least.)

Even I was shocked. But at the same time, we're all having a blast.

Regimented morality in D&D defeats the purpose, especially if your players just want to play pseudo-escapist power trip type games once in a while.

 

[Ydars]

I agree with Hobo that evil PCs can be fun..................................for about 2 sessions, as long as there are some limits and the evil is camp and a bit of a harmless power trip. Then it gets old really quickly.

But you can also sometimes learn things about your friends that are best left unexplored. It can get uncomfortable for the DM very quickly unless you are really "into" this kind of thing as well.

Best left alone if you ask me, especially if you are a novice DM.Far better just to direct your friends' murderous rampages into attacking something that is really "evil" and just play a black and white game for a while.

Good luck.

 

[LostSoul]

"He's not telling us his plans! ...Kill him!"

That doesn't sound like what happened.