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

[Harmon]

Murder because they have the power to kill whom ever they want without fear.

They murdered party members cause they didn't want to lose a fist fight?

They are not evil, they just have no moral grounds.

A good person treats people with respect, no matter their status.

I guess I just see myself handling these two situations completely differently, and not catching a thread about it later on a gaming web site asking if my playing style is evil.

 

[dontpunkme]

In the campaign I DM if the Aasimar paladin and Dwarven cleric (both of Bahamut) committed these acts it'd be immediate loss of class abilities. The paladin gets some really special abilities, but they come at the great cost (as far as whimsical unbridaled fun is a cost) of having to adhere to a strict code of conduct. The code of conduct includes both lawful and good restrictions. Killing the other soldiers without any provocation was murder (if you drew weapons first you can hardly claim self-defense). Killing the arbitor was absolutely unlawful. If the mother had still been alive and the father demanded the child the mother would have had no choice but to turn the child over. Furthermore, the desecration of his remains was undoubtedly evil (and possibly illegal depending on the kingdom's laws).

Honesty, I would strip the players of all of their abilities, if they wanted to repent and make restitution and get atonement spells then they might get back their class abilities (the paladin because of the lawful aspect would also have to suffer any punishment lobbied against him by the king). In all reality though, the king would likely have them put to death. If the king didn't he only invites more of the same to happen to more of his arbitors. If you decide to go light on them and banish them from the kingdom (and in full reality that is going EXTREMELY light on them) then make sure you give them some quest in conjunction with their atonement. Make them restore order and law in some lawless village dominated by a evil power center in another nation.

I would talk to the players in advance and let them know all of this out of character. Then I would sit down and see if they wanted to rework their characters (like many people have already suggested blackguard and cleric of an evil deity). Just remember, you're not the one who is screwing their characters, the players are.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I think the fact that you have a cleric and a paladin is an advantage, as it introduces some interesting RPing opportunities vis a vis their dieties.

In a somewhat similar situation (but not as extreme) the PCs found that they were praying for some spells but got given other spells (as an example they might always end up with "atonement" instead of their favourite spell of that level). The Paladin starts feeling a 'coldness' when he prays, and finds that his 'divine grace' goes on the blink and so forth.

At the time it added an interesting extra dimension to the game and went down well; additionally it helped steer the party back onto more reasonable waters.

Cheers

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Evil: almost certainly. Chaotic: maybe.

Hunted down for arrest and trial? Maybe. This all assumes an ambient level of law and order, as well as criminal investigation, that may or may not be appropriate for the setting. The guy they killed? He may just be MIA. The kingdom might be much more "Wild West" like in nature rather than CSI: Waterdeep.

Those are interesting alternatives, but they're not the only "realistic" alternatives.

 

[Fenes]

As others said, don't play your NPCs as stupid and suicidal. I'd have assumed an Arbiter was intelligent enough not to provoke a bunch of hot-headed and dangerous adventurers known to use violence. Would it have been too much for the NPC to simply give some (untrue or not) reason? Or to fake some concern for his kids? Or to give some "the mother was insane/evil/frightened" spiel? How did he gain his post then, if he can't even handle PCs without getting killed?

Just look at it from the other side of the screen: You have a PC, that walks up to a group of powerful NPCs known for their violent tendencies, and tries to tell them "Give me the baby" and won't give any explanation. Sense motive anyone? Intelligence check? Anything to tell the player "Hey, it's a bad idea to antagonise those people"?

Or, to sum it up: If the NPC is doing the equivalent to a PC walking up and trying to boss a dragon around, then the consequence is the same. Consequences and simulationism do not just apply to PCs.

If you play your NPCs as having a sense of self-preservation, and with more brains and manners than excessive pride you'd reduce such incidents.

That said, I run a campaign where people kill for honor/pride. Quite frequently. A knight would rather die than let an insult or rudeness left unanswered. I assume however, that this also causes the stupidly rude people to get weeded out early on. Not many who have a penchant for making their superiours angry live to see old age - or even 25. And far fewer will pick a fight with heroes. So, most NPCs my PCs meet are polite, and respectful, and used to swallow a lot from nobles and others above their station.

 

[Desdichado]

As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.

That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM. Generally it's not a good idea to piss your players off "on principle." Talk to them, let them know what you think is appopriate, and make sure that they understand why. If they want to have a beer and pretzels game where they kill anyone who thwarts them and you decide that they lose their paladin status, cleric spells, and they become outlaws to boot, you haven't accomplished anything except design a game specifically to frustrate and annoy your players. Don't do that.

 

[roguerouge]

I agree that the communication needs to happen, and that's why I'd like to recommend again the paladin variants in the SRD as a way of allowing the player of the paladin to keep playing his character.

 

[Deset Gled]

Just look at it from the other side of the screen: You have a PC, that walks up to a group of powerful NPCs known for their violent tendencies, and tries to tell them "Give me the baby" and won't give any explanation. Sense motive anyone? Intelligence check? Anything to tell the player "Hey, it's a bad idea to antagonise those people"?

If you replace "known for their violent tendencies" with "known to be a paladin and a good aligned cleric", as a PC I would not expect their first reaction to be an attempt to kill me.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.

That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM.

QFT. (And Fenes speaks truth as well)

Brad

 

[Fenes]

If you replace "known for their violent tendencies" with "known to be a paladin and a good aligned cleric", as a PC I would not expect their first reaction to be an attempt to kill me.

Well, in my game, "good" does not mean "non-violent". In the case of a paladin, which is a knight, quite the contrary.

I could even make a case for the paladin to be in the right for killing the arbiter, if the arbiter offered insult through his behaviour. It would most likely have had to be done in a duel though.

That's in my campaign though, where "good" is "good according to medieval custom" not "good as defined by the western civilisation of the 21st century".