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

[Ydars]

Hobo; what I meant was "You were right for yourself, in your situation, but perhaps not in this one." I was trying (too hard) to be diplomatic given the sometimes vitriolic nature of "debate" on this forum.

I don't know about you, but I prefer Light to Heat when it comes to discussion, any day of the week?

 

[haakon1]

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

Nod, exactly.

 

[haakon1]

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.

If you chop off the head and burn the body, as the party did, they are trying to make it quite permanent.

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo; what I meant was "You were right for yourself, in your situation, but perhaps not in this one." I was trying (too hard) to be diplomatic given the sometimes vitriolic nature of "debate" on this forum.

Confused. ?? You think my debate is "debate" and vitriolic?

I don't know about you, but I prefer Light to Heat when it comes to discussion, any day of the week?

I don't know about you, but that's what I'm doing? Heck, I was even agreeing with you!

 

[cougent]

It seems to me that from the very questions posed by the OP that he considers these as evil acts. So the issue really seems like it is going to a personal issue between DM and Players, and maybe that is the best place to solve it. Especially now since te OP has already let some of it pass without recourse, to retroactively impose recourse now in any form is probably not going to sit well with the players. As others have mentioned, I think a serious OOG discussion is in order to determine what the players want / expect from the game. If they just want a "kill bad guys / take their stuff" game with no alignment overtones to worry about, then the DM has to decide if he can do that and be happy as well. As mentioned above, throw plenty of truly bad guys at them and let them kill away without dealing with nuances of quasi-bad / quasi-good shades of gray. This is not meant as an insult to the players, they may just want that style of play and their is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mark Chance]

Evil and chaotic. The paladin is no longer a paladin. The entire group is being hunted down for arrest, trial, and appropriate punishment. Run a final adventure that results in the PCs going down in a blaze of glory like Butch and Sundance. Make up new PCs and try again.

 

[hong]

-1. This is not an alignment issue.

0. This is why, as a general rule, the people with blue circles around their feet should not be played as annoying.

 

[LostSoul]

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".

I was just trying to look at it from the point of view of the players.

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.

That wasn't my argument.

 

[Final Attack]

The primary thing I was looking for was ideas, and opinions. Thanks to everyone who responded.

My story line is quite complex and the game is very long running so there was information left out to keep my post succinct. For those who asked we are all in our early 20s. I frequently encourage freedom of choice, and RARELY try to ‘railroad’ their options in the game, hence my reluctance to reprimand them. I frequently talk with them OOC about their actions and try to get justification for their actions. We have a pretty understanding table.

There is a lot of roleplaying, but the fighter is very quick to instigate fights. But Paladin and cleric always back him up. One thing not originally mentioned is upon cutting the head off Vincent a painfully bright light from the wound blinded the Pally. This is a planned punishment, one that will last a year before he can overcome it. Hades (introduced as Linous, Hades is only a pet name I use for him, yes he is dangerous and evil) will not take the killing of Vincent lightly, he merely wants to have the PCs become his pawns through blackmail. His calm demeanour is to keep the PCs relaxed.

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

The concept of making them outlaws is a good notion. One I haven't thought through. Though many people do agree that they should at least become outlaws.

 

[Storm Raven]

I was just trying to look at it from the point of view of the players.

Only unreasonable players would view it the way you have suggested, since it assumes all kinds of wacky mental contortions. The only truly reasonable interpretation a player could draw from the facts given is pretty much: "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." Anything that strays too far from that is just nutty. The non-evil response to this set of facts is never "kill him!"

That wasn't my argument.

Really? Because this:

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.

Looks exactly like that was the argument you were making. Effectively, you seem to be excusing murderous mayhem as "not evil" on the ground that D&D is violent. You may want to clarify your argument if that's not what you intended.