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

[billd91]

Very true. Like the old mantra goes: "An attack upon the King's Men is an assault upon the King himself."

But, to blanketly label anyone who responds to a duel challenge, regardless of apparent skill level or social standing, as evil, is just plain wrong.

Unless they gang up on the guy. Then they are honorless curs as well.

 

[Storm Raven]

Heck, even as late as 1800s in America, duels were still being fought. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, anyone? Guess what; the murder charges against Aaron Burr were dismissed, and that was at the very end of the socially acceptable duel period.

Burr's political career was destroyed by the illegal duel, and he was considered an outcast from society after the duel. yeah, that was considered "good" and "right" at the time.

How about in the Old West? Was Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday considered a murderer? Was Wild Bill Hickok punished for murder because he gunned down Davis Tutt in the street? Oh... no, he was actually considered a hero, as were Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.

Hmm, Hickock claimed self-defense, after he was arrested and tried for manslaughter. It doesn't sound like his actions were considered particularly good at the time. He was only acquited because the jury bought the argument that Tutt had acted first. Otherwise, he likely would have been convicted, as many other gunslingers of the era were. Earp and Holliday acted under the authority of law, even if they may have abused that authority, and many condemned them at the time, and they were actually charged with murder, and although the charges weren't sustained the judge roundly criticized them. Public opinion was so against them at the time, that after their vendetta ride Earp and Holliday had to uproot and leave the Arizona Territory. That doesn't sound like they were lauded as heroes (and they weren't, until much later when Earp got to publicize his accounts of the activities, after most of his opponents were dead).

Most gunfights at the time involved lawmen (like the Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight), resulted in muder charges (like the Gunfight in Hide Park), and many times the only reason no one was prosecuted was poor communications (it was still possible to go to the next territory and vanish from sight). Most gunfighters became famous much later, when their stories were romanticised, but at the time, most people (and most newspaper accounts) seem to have painted them as thugs and criminals.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, flipping someone powerful off is stupid unless you have the power to back it up. It is also a threatening act: because it is stupid unless you are strong, it implies strength, and as such is a direct threat. Direct threats in DnD, because of the dominance of offense, should be met with submission or attack. It is unfortunate for the arbitrator that his bluff got called.

I had figured that "might makes right" had pretty much been discarded as a moral guide. I guess I was wrong. You see, what keeps people who are more powerful than others from killing and running rampant is generally morality - those who are "good" don't engage in wanton acts of murder and destruction in response to insults and uncivility. Those who are "evil" often do.

No one is saying that the PCs are not powerful. No one is saying that they could not kill peasants that annoyed them or burn villages to the ground in response to an insult. The only thing that is being said it that, in D&D terms, they would be evil if they did so.

Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced? We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws. Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified.

Given that the paladin in question is working for the same king as the arbiter, it seems like there really isn't an "unjust law" question here. Certainly there isn't any justification for killing the guy.

Whether or not the DM intended it as such, the arbitrator picked a fight he couldn't win. I weep for him. Next time, try answering the party's questions unless you *are* strong enough to laugh at them. It is the sane and reasonable thing to do, unless your request of the party isn't reasonable...

Because it isn't "evil" to kill those who refuse to answer your questions. Umm, yeah.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, flipping someone powerful off is stupid unless you have the power to back it up. It is also a threatening act: because it is stupid unless you are strong, it implies strength, and as such is a direct threat. Direct threats in DnD, because of the dominance of offense, should be met with submission or attack. It is unfortunate for the arbitrator that his bluff got called.

Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced? We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws. Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified.

Whether or not the DM intended it as such, the arbitrator picked a fight he couldn't win. I weep for him. Next time, try answering the party's questions unless you *are* strong enough to laugh at them. It is the sane and reasonable thing to do, unless your request of the party isn't reasonable...

There are so many ways this party of supposed good people could have handled this. One way is to go to the King and ask him to make the decision. Travel with the father and the baby back to the King.

The reason I don't think this falls under a good act is because of how they did it. If the guy left them no choice but to fight then they should of after they killed him taken his body and the children to the King's court. And explained what had happened. But they went about things hopfullly to hide what they have done. If they end up going after the pesant who saw them and kill him then there intent is not a noble one to protect the baby. The paladin is no paladin he is murderous thug killing a witness for the sole purpose of protecting himself from the consquences of his actions.

The mother did not want this man to have the children but did she warn the PCs that the man was evil and the children would be in danger from him? For all we know the mother was mad at Vincent and wanted to punish him.

There is a big difference in protecting a baby from an evil cultist father who intends on killing the child in his god's name and a dead mother not wanting her babies raised by a man she may not have liked.

If I plaed in that game I would have gathered more information on why the mother didn't want him to know about the babies.

And I disagree that you have to answer the PCs questions. It really depends who the NPC is I would think that a person who is the law of the land and speaks for the king would feel no obligation to answer some non official PCs questions.

his status should be enough to protect him and if it is not then his death won't go unpunished by the law.

 

[hamishspence]

Legality of Duelling

Duels have been illegal for a long time. Plenty of historical fiction stresses this: people duelling then having to flee the country. on the other hand, they may have gone through phases: legal and illegal.

No duel begins 4 to one. makes it murder, not "self defence"

I did not see any actual rudeness. Simply insisting " i wil take the boy" isn't an insult.

Unless your players had evidence that the arbitor was breaking the law, not reasonable to attack them: no justification.

If paladin had cast Detect evil, might have had right to complain, but some DMs rule that an Evil person can be in good standing with the law, and you need evidence of wrongdoing to justify attacking even an evil NPC.

 

[Desdichado]

Burr's political career was destroyed by the illegal duel, and he was considered an outcast from society after the duel. yeah, that was considered "good" and "right" at the time.

Psst! I already said that that was the very end of the socially accepted dueling period. The reason they did it was because there was a long tradition of it being considered the "right" thing to do.

And you can't exactly say that what he did was illegal if the courts dismissed the charges against him, can you?

Hmm, Hickock claimed self-defense, after he was arrested and tried for manslaughter. It doesn't sound like his actions were considered particularly good at the time. He was only acquited because the jury bought the argument that Tutt had acted first. Otherwise, he likely would have been convicted, as many other gunslingers of the era were. Earp and Holliday acted under the authority of law, even if they may have abused that authority, and many condemned them at the time, and they were actually charged with murder, and although the charges weren't sustained the judge roundly criticized them. Public opinion was so against them at the time, that after their vendetta ride Earp and Holliday had to uproot and leave the Arizona Territory. That doesn't sound like they were lauded as heroes (and they weren't, until much later when Earp got to publicize his accounts of the activities, after most of his opponents were dead).

No, you're inputting your own bias in there. I've read plenty of sources on this, and they all seem to indicate that they were acquitted or had their charges dismissed because the juries viewed their acts as acceptable. You're really straining to get around that basic fact which runs through the majority of historical duels; they were seen by society as acceptable, which is why they were engaged in. They really only caused problems 1) when someone didn't follow the rules for proper dueling, which could lead to murder charges, or 2) when society started turning against dueling as an acceptable practice.

Wyatt Earp was arrested because there were competing claims about how exactly the gunfight had been handled. When unbiased testimony came forward and showed that the complaints about Earp's actions were likely made by witnesses biased against him, the charges were dropped. Judge Spicer didn't criticise Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday for their role in the gunfight at the OK Corrall, he criticized Virgil Earp for his temporary deputizing of Wyatt and Holliday. You also are apparently now conflating reaction to the OK Corrall and reaction to the Vendetta ride, which were too different things altogether.

Most gunfights at the time involved lawmen (like the Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight), resulted in muder charges (like the Gunfight in Hide Park), and many times the only reason no one was prosecuted was poor communications (it was still possible to go to the next territory and vanish from sight).

While that may have been true in some cases, many times they actually were charged and even brought to trial, and then acquitted or had the charges dismissed because their actions were considered acceptable in that society at that time. You also very noticably forget to mention plenty of other famous duels; Samuel Martin challenged John Wilkes to to a duel in the House of Commons no less. Prince Frederick, Duke of York fought a highly publicized duel with Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Lennox that was reported in the Times (granted, no one was killed in that case.) Heck, Andrew Jackson went on to be elected President of the USA after killing an opponent in a duel.

You're really having to twist things to say that dueling was viewed as evil and lawless by society. That simply is not the case and the only way you can come to that conclusion is by ignoring tons and tons of evidence.

 

[Arnwyn]

Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced?

You mean, if I had (accidental) custody of a child, and the random stranger mother told me not to give him to the police officer and wouldn't give a reason, would I turn him over to said police officer? Of course I would turn him over. Sheesh.

We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws. Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified.

No, we're not, as there is no evidence of "unjust laws" given in this thread.

 

[Mallus]

I had figured that "might makes right" had pretty much been discarded as a moral guide.

Not in D&D.

I guess I was wrong.

You were.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not in D&D.

Really? Could you show how the alignment guidelines lead one to that conclusion?

 

[Mallus]

Really? Could you show how the alignment guidelines lead one to that conclusion?

The alignment guidelines didn't lead me to that conclusion. Observing people playing the game for the past 23 years did. Not to mention the fact that there are far more rules in D&D for perpetrating violent conflicts --and improving yourself by doing so-- than exploring the moral implications of said violent confilcts (that would be 'a lot' vs. 'effectively none').

And alignment? It's D&D equivalent of a team jersey. People wearing the same color are your teammates. People with the opposing teams colors are okay to tackle. Or smite. Or flamestrike. I've never found alignment to be the least bit convincing as an ethical framework.