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

[haakon1]

So I'm not going to waste any more time with it.

Well, I agree with that at least.

I apologize to the OP that this turned into a nasty slugfest about nothing in particular.

 

[Storm Raven]

Killing a mouthy peasant for being mouthy isn't much different from killing an orc because it's an orc. The trick is not to get hung up the relative morality of either and find ways to keep the action/challenges rolling.

Umm, yeah. Let's just ignore that you said that who your actions are directed towards doesn't affect the relative morality of these actions, why don't we. Because otherwise your statement would be unimaginably monstrous.

I can see why you have a problem discerning "good" and 'evil" if this is your attitude.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, thanks for the link, but honestly, I'm not going to look at it. I've read plenty on the subject.

Oh, that's a good argument: "I won't look at actual evidence because that might disturb my preconceived notions about a subject. Never mind that the link is to a comprehensive look at the history of dueling and the laws surrounding it put out by the George Washington University Law School.

Clearly, you have your opinion and nothing I post (no matter how convincing---or even blindingly obvious) I think it is is going to change your mind. So I'm not going to waste any more time with it.

Thus far you've posted nothing convincing in any way. You've posted a pile of popular claptrap on a poorly understood subject, backed up by nothing. Popular claptrap that is contradicted by the actual historical record. And then you decided not to look at a review of the actual historical record. Yeah, pretty unconvincing.

Between you, and the faculty of a major law school on the subject, I'll take the faculty. At least they supply evidence to support their claims.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of these players here. Because if you're a DM and you're not doing that, chances are you're not a very good DM.

I usually try not to put myself in the shoes of players who have their characters engage in vile, criminal, immoral acts and then expect, somehow, that this won't make their characters evil or have other untoward consequences. I'm kind of funny that way.

 

[Fenes]

-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.

Wish more people would consider this.

 

[Eridanis]

Interesting thread so far. Please keep on-topic, and away from personal sniping.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh, that's a good argument:

*sigh* I said I wasn't going to waste any more time with you on that.

I usually try not to put myself in the shoes of players who have their characters engage in vile, criminal, immoral acts and then expect, somehow, that this won't make their characters evil or have other untoward consequences. I'm kind of funny that way.

:shrug: Whatever. It's your game. That doesn't mean that your advice is any good, though. Paying attention to your players and their expectations from the game is always a good idea, and saying that you won't is always a bad one.

 

[Elf Witch]

While I found the debate on dueling in history really interesting. I have been burning up google on it today.

I will admit to sometimes getting a little peeved when historical facts are brought up in a DnD discussion about alignment issues. Take dueling maybe it was frowned on here in our world but in the imaginary world of some DMs it may be perfectly lawful and have an entire society based around it.

They are great as possible examples on how to handle things but saying well in our world this was an evil act or an unlawful act does not make it true for some fantasy world.

 

[Storm Raven]

*sigh* I said I wasn't going to waste any more time with you on that.

When all your arguments fail in the face of evidence, walk away.

:shrug: Whatever. It's your game. That doesn't mean that your advice is any good, though. Paying attention to your players and their expectations from the game is always a good idea, and saying that you won't is always a bad one.

No. It isn't always a good idea. If players want to play in a game in which they get to be murderous thugs without consequence, then paying attention to them is usually a waste of my time. The needs and desires of those sorts of players are of no consequence to me, and if they don't have fun, I could not care less. If they get mad and walk out as a result, I'd say "don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out". Catering to people who want to play out things like murder fantasies is just a waste of my tme.

Suggesting that you shouldn't pay attention to players who want to play a style of game you think is lousy is always good advice. The game also involves the DM, and while the DM needs players to have a campaign, given the fact that players are much easier to find than DMs, the players need the DM far more than he needs them, so playing the type of the game the DM wants to run is the paramount concern. If someone wants to play a game in which players can engage in random acts of murder and mayhem and suffer no consequences, let them run the game.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

You know something that the characters in question *never* did? Initiate unprovoked violence. Go back and read the OP. What they did do is respond to threats with overwhelming, lethal force. (comments about the first encounter described at the bottom)

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.

Sure there is. If the arbitrator cannot (or chooses not to) justify his word as law, that word becomes unbinding on lawful characters.

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

I'm just guessing here, but the sequence of events probably wasn't:
Why do you want the kid?
I'm not telling.
PCs: smash

but more like

Why don't you want the kid?
Not telling?
Then no kid.
Arbitrator: threat
PCs: smash

Side note, of general interest: there are no friendly brawls in DnD. Any "friendly, unarmed brawl" in DnD will end with people unconcious on the ground. Which is the definition of an unfriendly brawl. Choosing non-lethal damage over lethal is a matter of trying to knock you out vs killing you: both are trying to put you into hospital. Players seem more in tune with this reality, and respond to unarmed attacks as what they really are: a very real threat.

 

[Mallus]

I would say you're looking at the wrong evidence and making the wrong conclusions.

It's somehow inappropriate to use the evidence provided by personal experience and several thousand pages worth of rules for doing lovingly detailed, neigh, fetishized fantasy violence ("My character is deadly with a whip! Oh yeah, mine smooshes you by throwing big rocks! Hah, mine kills with ooze!")??

It's all great fun, but a spade's a spade. Unless it's taken a few levels of the Invisible Hoe PrC... (hey, that's good).

The alignment guidelines make it clear that D&D alignments are not mere social constructs but objective traits that a character may or may not conform to (or may conform to in varying degrees).

According to the RAW, alignment isn't a social/ethical/moral system at all; it really describes certain spell behaviors/interactions.

D&D also has far more rules for governing violence than ethical conflicts because that is where more rules are necessary to make a fair game.

It doesn't take thousands of pages of rules to create a balanced, workable combat system cf. 1st or 2nd edition Runequest. When your rule set reaches the size of D&D, with bulk of the pages devoted to new classes/magical armaments/foes to kill, I think you have to admit that better balance isn't the design goal...