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

[Kraydak]

And still noone listens to meeeee

The rest of the thread has merely been commentary.

(I'm not entirely kidding. Here, at least, Hong spoke truth. Push PCs and they *will* push back. Possibly preemptively)

 

[Mallus]

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.

Wait, we're still talking about fictional characters like my mouthy peasant and run-of-the-mill orc, right? Let me know when that changes, will you?

(Heh, D&D NPC's barely rate as fiction most of the time, let alone entities that you can make meaningful, non-silly moral statements with regard to.)

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

I'm quite sharp when it comes to discerning between the real and imaginary. This comes in handy when discussing ethics.

 

[Storm Raven]

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)

Comments that include a justification you made up. Note that the OP didn't say "the arbiter threatened them" he said, "the arbiter asked for his child, wouldn't somehow justify this request, and they attacked and killed him".

In other words, they initiated unprovoked violence. Contrary to the fantasy version you have spun as justificiation for unprovoked murder and mayhem.

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

That is the lamest argument I've seen this week. The arbiter doesn't have to justify his actions to a bunch a ragamuffin PCs. Any more than a judge would have to justify an order, or a police officer has to engage in on-the-spot banter with a criminal. Maybe later he would be called to account for his actions, but at the time? Not a chance.

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

In other words, you've decided to make up stuff that appears not to have happened. And even if he did threaten, that doesn't mean the appropriate nonevil response is "kill him!".

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.

Not necessarily. I think you are, once again, assuming things to be true that are not universally so. I've DMed and played in seveal brawl situations in which one or more of the combating parties, upon realizing they would not prevail retreated, surrendered, or otherwise ceased hostilities.

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.

The problem is, even in an "unfriendly brawl" escalating from nonlethal to lethal violence usually has much more severe consequences. To drag a real world example in, usually a brawl that ends without someone maimed or killed results in midemeanor charges, a slap on the wrist, and maybe a civil suit. A brawl that ends with someone dead usually results in a felony trial, and often a lengthy prison term.

Escalating a nonlethal struggle to a lethal one is a significant step. If it is clear to the players that this is the case, you are much more likely to have a situation in which they respect that barrier when it is appropriate to do so.

 

[Storm Raven]

Wait, we're still talking about fictional characters like my mouthy peasant and run-of-the-mill orc, right? Let me know when that changes, will you?

And apparently you can't distinguish how one should be treated differently than the other.

I'm quite sharp when it comes to discerning between the real and imaginary. This comes in handy when discussing ethics.

Ah yes, the completely inane argument that "it's all imaginary, so it doesn't matter". If it is all imaginary, why are you bothering posting to a thread in which a poster wanted to know if an action would be considered good or evil in game? If all actions are equally good or evil in game, why bother to respond? Why clutter the thread with this sort of irrelevant and empty statement?

The point is that in game, one should be treated differently than the other. That is the essence of discerning good from evil in the game. Even if it is imaginary, it matters in the game.

 

[Mallus]

And apparently you can't distinguish how one should be treated differently than the other.

Well, no matter how one treats them it doesn't amount to 'monstrous'.

The point is that in game, one should be treated differently than the other.

And my point is that it's not particularly relevant to discuss how players react to NPC's. What is relevant is how a DM reacts to players; that regardless of whether the players actions are good, evil, or somewhere in between, they should lead to interesting consequences and opportunities for challenging play.

If a DM is ever tempted to 'punish' their players for transgressive acts, or 'teach them the error of their ways', then that DM really aught to throw in the towel.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, no matter how one treats them it doesn't amount to 'monstrous'.

If you think the two are equivalent moral acts, then yes, it probably does.

If a DM is ever tempted to 'punish' their players for transgressive acts, or 'teach them the error of their ways', then that DM really aught to throw in the towel.

I don't think anyone here is talking about punishing players. The issue is punishing the characters. And I think it is entirely appropriate for characters to suffer consequences for their actions. If they want to behave like murderous thugs, then they drift to evil, become outlaws, and generally have lots of attendant troubles. They certainly don't get to keep applying the label "good" to themselves.

Generally, a party of four 5th level PCs who become evil and engage in the type of behaviour described in the original post become an appropriate challenge for a band of 9th+ level good adventurers to hunt down. What? You thought you were the only band of adventurers roaming about?

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I must concur with Hong. The alignment side of this issue is merely ornamentation decorating the core of the situation, which is how the characters interact with the world, and how that world interacts with them. The DM must reach a decision as to whether or not he wishes the world to react to the PCs actions in a proactive manner, or simply allow the PCs to do as they choose without repricussion.

As others have mentioned, in a few games it is simply, kick in the door, take the treasure, and party at the tavern afterwards. It really sounds like this is the type of game your players are engaging in from what you have said so far. Those loutish NPCs are starting a brawl with us after we played pranks on them, and beating us? Screw that, we pull weapons and kick their ass!

That creepy Vincent is demanding his kid, without giving us a reason? Let's kill that arrogant/weird bastard, and make sure he never comes back as some Undead monstrosity to bother us again. Now that we've done that, let's go find a dungeon to raid!

And hey, those games can be great fun. The question is whether or not this style is meshing with the DMs preferences as well. So, as DM, what I would do is make a decision to either go along with the hack'n'slash, or create a more story centric, character driven campaign.

Now, if you choose to go with the latter, make certain to explain that you are going to be moving the campaign in this direction with your players beforehand. That way, when the world starts reacting in a logical method to the players actions, where it has not before (if that's the case), the players are not surprised or upset.

Now, your idea of having the peasant depart to turn the PCs in to the law could be the trigger point for this new campaign style regardless of its outcome. The PCs could choose to butcher the peasant, thus committing themselves to the dark path that will forever dominate their destiny, and leading to the intrigue with Hades that you are preparing.

Or, the PCs could choose to allow the peasant to live, and begin the road towards redemption. If the PCs have performed heroic deeds in the past that benefitted the kingdom, the King of the land could simply bind them to his service for the remainder of years that Vincent was supposed to serve. The king could request they make up for the loss of such a valuable agent of the King by protecting the country and performing the duties that Vincent was once responsible for.

And the third possibility, is they decide on a method for detaining or capturing the peasant. Depending on the level of your PCs, perhaps they Imprison him, or send him to another plane of existence, or perhaps they transport him far off to another country. Perhaps they even attempt to enslave him with a Geas or other spell, or they blackmail/strong arm him with their diplomatic skills/force of arms into keeping quiet.

At this point, you could have other parties be aware of the fate of the peasant, and begin attempting to blackmail the PCs with this information. Give this blackmailer a back up power source, a group, a secret BBEG behind his actions, or some other such thing, as given the PCs nature, they may simply kill anyone who attempts to blackmail them.

As such, to keep the story driven nature of the campaign up, again if that is what you want, have gears that will be set into motion by the PCs murder of the blackmailer. Perhaps the real enemy knew the PCs would kill the blackmailer all along, and set it up so that by doing so, they're exposed as violent and dangerous criminals.

This causes the focus of the countries law abiding forces to shift to the PCs, allowing the BBEG or what have you behind this whole scenario to move forth with his wicked plans for world domination unfettered. The PCs, while fending off the hounds set loose against them, realize this evil plot and must set forth to stop it before it can happen, with no options other than their own wits and resources.

They are now wanted criminals throughout the land, while their enemy is a respected noble/shadowy figure none know of, and no one will believe these ne'er do wells and known villains mad warnings, doubtlessly contrived as a last ditch effort to save themselves from justice.

Or, depending on the players temprament, the shadowy figure/respected noble could now come to them after having exposed them and ruined their reputation, and claim that while everyone else now despises them, he/she realizes their true worth, and offers to enlist the PCs to their cause and the eventual destruction of all of their mutual enemies.

Just figure out based on the peasant scenario what type of game your players seem most interested in, and roll on out from there. From what you described, your group is a good one, and so you should have fun with any of the possible scenarios.

 

[Fenes]

Or the king could simply decide "Whoa, I didn't know Vincent was as stupid and inept as to get himself killed by acting arrogantly and rudely with the wrong sort of people. Good thing he died before I sent him to the neighboring realm, or he might've started a war".

I mean, if we're talking logic and consequences: We have here an arbiter that was simply too stupid to handle PCs. At best he'd have made them mad, possibly causing them to leave the country. At worst, he might have provoked them into launching an attack on the crown. And what for? So he would not have to invent or state a reason to get the kid? Sheer lazyness, in other words? How on earth did he ever get his position? He seems inept at politics.

Good or evil aside, his actions were stupid, suicidal and dangerous to his king. You simply do not treat PCs of a certain level that way unless you somehow managed to be ignorant or ignore their personal power. I find the idea that it's realistic for anyone to try to bully people who can level a kingdom if they put their mind ot it a tad odd.

Again, there's a double standard: PCs are expected to act smart, and not tweak the dragon's nose, or provoke the neighbor's king and army, by acting arrogantly, but NPCs are expected to be able to do that? Or do PCs get to ignore dilpomacy and bluff and sense motive, as long as the are in the right, without any consequences either?

Let's play NPCs as having more than two braincells, and an intellect able to understand that just because they are in the right by law doesn't mean they should push the tank bataillon into rebellion just because they don't want to use diplomacy or bluff.

How many DMs acknowledge the power that PCs wield? How many DMs let NPCs react to that power in a consistent way, and how many simply try to have NPCS bully PCs around no matter the PCs' level?

Good or evil is one question, but maybe there's a need to look objectively at what Vincent did: Acting rashly and rudely, and arrogantly towards a force that is, going from standard D&D world truism, able to wreck his kingdom.

 

[Fenes]

Please keep in mind that for the average kingdom, trying to treat high-level PCs as wanted criminals is akin to Mexico declaring war on the USA over a border incident. Mexico may be completely without blame in the border incident, but it's still not exactly smart or anything but suicidal.

Past a certain level, PCs become, in the standard D&D world, powers of their own, and should get treated as such.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I would hesitate to take that stance since it implies that anyone who has difficulty in social situations is automatically going to die when they meet people who are more powerful than they are. Not everyone is polite, not everyone is well cultured and diplomatic, and not everyone is wise/perceptive enough to recognize the differentials in power that may exist when interacting with other individuals.

Lack of politic conversation should not equate an immediate death warrant, and it most certainly does not equate the PCs, or anyone else, for that matter, having the right to terminate the life of another based on such criteria. Restraint and tact in the face of difficult people is as much a part of social graces as anything else, and those who cannot maintain such civility and must resort to violence to solve their affairs have been in history, and would be in most D&D worlds, regarded as barbarous and cruel.

I most certainly would not expect any lawful, civilized country or people to look upon the slaying of an agent of the King as justified based on the manner in which he addressed another. I cannot believe that the King himself would be anything other than outraged or apalled at such actions, especially since they are not only a heinous crime, but an affront to his very authority as the ruler of the land.