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

[Desdichado]

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.

In other words... you don't agree with me.

We just finished a level 1-23 campaign (Age of Worms) with only a couple good PC's in the entire bunch. I've played long-running games where the PC's were members of organized criminal organizations. I've played games where PC's were government assassins. It didn't get old. Evil does not equal randomly violent or stupid.

 

[Arnwyn]

QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?

Yes, absolutely.

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

This:

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.

Tell them - out of character - to make a decision and/or drop the facade. After that, though, I don't know how you should handle the situation, since I don't know your group dynamics. I, for one, would be ganking the paladin and cleric so fast their heads would spin, but that's just me - no idea what would work for your particular group.

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

Beats me.

 

[Storm Raven]

That doesn't sound like what happened.

True. It actually sounds a lot better than what actually happened: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of the king, and who we have no reason to believe is evil or engaged in any wrongdoing, asked for his child to be turned over to him - kill him!".

 

[Ydars]

Dear Hobo; I am not sure the evil versus non-evil party thing is something anyone is right or wrong about, when speaking of theit own preferences. It sounds like your long-running evil game was fun and you had some mature players and a good/experienced DM.

I was just putting the other side of the coin, given that the DM asking for help sounds a little out of his depth already and his PCs sound, how did you put it, randomly violent and stupid already.

This does not sound like ideal material for exploring the darker side of roleplaying to me, but I may be wrong.

No offense to yourself intended or implied.

Elen sila lumenn omentielvo.

 

[LostSoul]

True. It actually sounds a lot better than what actually happened: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of the king, and who we have no reason to believe is evil or engaged in any wrongdoing, asked for his child to be turned over to him - kill him!".

Or: "The tyrant's agent, above any law himself, wants his child and won't tell us why. The child's dead mother doesn't want him to have the child. Let's stop him."

Add in the fact that this is D&D and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

 

[billd91]

Add in the fact that this is D&D and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

This is D&D and there are things such as wish and true resurrection. Even violence is a temporary measure when it comes to conflict resolution.

 

[kenobi65]

Evil does not equal randomly violent or stupid.

No, but, based on the stories one sees on EN World, among D&D PCs, there's a high degree of corellation.

 

[Storm Raven]

Or: "The tyrant's agent, above any law himself, wants his child and won't tell us why. The child's dead mother doesn't want him to have the child. Let's stop him."

Add in the fact that this is D&D and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

The tyrant who we work for has an agent. Who is the arbitor of law. Who it has never been established at any point is evil. Or that the tyrant is evil. Or that the "tyrant" is, in fact, a tyrant, rather than just a run-of-the-mill fantasy king employing adventurers. But sure, this arbiter of the law and personal agent of the king who won't explain himself to a bunch of ragamuffin cutthroats as to why he would like his own child turned over to him should be killed out of hand. Because that's not evil. Mind if I roll my eyes a bit?

You made a lot of assumptions that are really unwarranted in your hysterically funny contortions to try to make what is pretty clearly an evil act "not evil".

And by the way, "D&D is violent, so murder at the drop of a hat isn't evil" is pretty much a non-starter of an argument.

 

[Desdichado]

Dear Hobo; I am not sure the evil versus non-evil party thing is something anyone is right or wrong about, when speaking of theit own preferences. It sounds like your long-running evil game was fun and you had some mature players and a good/experienced DM.

Oh, I know. I just thought it was funny that you said "I agree with Hobo" and then went on to disagree with me completely.

I was just putting the other side of the coin, given that the DM asking for help sounds a little out of his depth already and his PCs sound, how did you put it, randomly violent and stupid already.

This does not sound like ideal material for exploring the darker side of roleplaying to me, but I may be wrong.

I agree; thinking that what they're doing is actually justified and that they can call their characters good is the problem. Thinking that the PC's actions don't have any consequences. Good or evil, or even no alignment whatsoever (actually my preferred way to play) are all viable playstyles, but clearly the entire group has to be on the same page on how the game is going to go down. I think that's the sticking point; if the DM thinks these actions are clearly evil (as do I) and the players think that they're good, then they need to talk it out and say, "hey, if you wanna play this way, here's what could happen to you: loss of paladin status, loss of cleric spells (for clerics of a good god), outlaw status if their role in the murders become well-known and the countryside is relatively settled and lawful... etc." But if they don't think there are consequences for those kinds of actions and the DM does, then one way or another, it's going to come to a head at some point, and someone will be disappointed in the way the campaign turned out.

 

[haakon1]

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.

My advice is to stop being gamist and start being simulationist about how the world reacts to the PC's. Don't decide based on what's best for the game/easiest to run. Decide based on what the NPC's, as characters, would reasonably do. Let the chips fall where they may.

If you run the world this way, there will be consequences for PC's actions, and complex, interesting plots will develop.

Or just let it go and let them play it like a video game, where they can kill for no reason and nobody much cares.

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?

In the modern US, it's serious felonies -- kidnapping and murder. In Western (and every other!) tradition, killing someone without a reason is considered evil. So heck yes, it's evil.

More importantly, in a campaign where the NPC's react as characters instead of the DM making personally calls, killing Vincent is like killing a cop. All other members of your law enforcement community will take it extremely seriously. The PC's have just become your campaign's most wanted, whether the good guys (that would be not the PC's) know who they are looking for or not.

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.

Unless Hades is insane, this makes no sense. How many state troopers would roll up to a burning patrol car with dead troopers inside, laugh, and make a job offer to the gang members holding the gasoline cans?

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

Send an army of arbitors to kill the PC's. Make the PC's outlaws, who everyone is afraid to help (read: sell food to, shelter, etc.), bounty hunters will track them, and others will try to kill them in their sleep for the reward money. The PC's chose to be hunted by murdering a lawman, so let them have it with both barrels. "Bad boys bad boys, what you gunna do, what you gunna do when they come for you?" The lawlessness of a fantasy/Wild West milleau doesn't just mean PC's can do anything they want, it also means the NPC's don't need to be nice to them. This could make the campaign quite different and memorable.

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

I think they will act like the villains they clearly are. I just hope you reward them for their behavoir.