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

[roguerouge]

Perhaps you mean to say "Paladin of Slaughter"?

That would seem to fit a band of murdering cutthroats better.

Yeah, in my opinion too (see first page of posts), but with that class shift, you get a fight. The freedom variant is the compromise position for the OP.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yeah, in my opinion too (see first page of posts), but with that class shift, you get a fight. The freedom variant is the compromise position for the OP.

I think the Paladin of Freedom option would probably just make the problem worse. By shifting the Paladin to a Paladin of Slaughter, you pretty clearly communicate what the players have become. By "compromising" and making an evil character into a Paladin of Freedom, you obscure that point. If the idea is to actually give a clear signal as to what is considered 'good" and "evil" behaviour, then you need to shift the characters to an evil alignment when they engage in a series of evil acts (as these characters appear to have done).

 

[Mallus]

By shifting the Paladin to a Paladin of Slaughter, you pretty clearly communicate what the players have become.

You have yet to demonstrate why communicating that is of any importance with regard to the continuing success of the OP's game.

The PC's acted, now the DM needs to enforce consequences that fall roughly within the CR/EL guidelines -- like your own previous suggestion to sick a crusading group of 7th level NPC's on them. That was a fine suggestion. A challenging but fair encounter/story arc.

If the idea is to actually give a clear signal as to what is considered 'good" and "evil" behaviour, then you need to shift the characters to an evil alignment when they engage in a series of evil acts (as these characters appear to have done).

Except that isn't the idea, or at least it shouldn't be. This thread was a solicitation for practical advice for moving forward, like roguerouge's perfectly sensible suggestion re: the party Paladin becoming a Paladin of Freedom. Only you, SR, seem to think the issue hangs on getting the PC's to publicly confess that they're capital "E" evil. How that would improve their game remains unclear to me. As does the implicit notion that the DM needs to teach the players some sort of lesson.

 

[billd91]

Except that isn't the idea. This thread was a solicitation for practical advice for moving forward, like roguerouge's perfectly sensible suggestion re: the Paladin of Freedom. Only you, SR, seem to think the issue hangs on getting the PC's to publicly confess that they're capital "E" evil. How that would improve their game remains unclear to me. As does the implicit notion that the DM needs to teach the players some sort of lesson.

In this case, I think a lesson is in order. The lesson at least needs to be: select the right kind of character classes for the game you want to play. A typical paladin is not appropriate for being a wanton, muderous outlaw or for any campaign where the characters are going to be predominantly evil... at least not without a lot of story planning by the player and DM.

Rather than substitute some kind of other paladin, I'd have the character rebuild the character. I don't see a paladin of freedom being any more appropriate to the character's actions than a standard paladin, the main problem being predominantly evil. Maybe a paladin of tyranny or slaughter, but paladin of freedom should be as right out as the standard paladin. The tool (character class) does not fit the work it is being put to (the PC's behavior in the campaign).

 

[Helmet]

...I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it).

I think you're wrong about this. The PCs didn't kill without fear of consequences. The PCs could have died from fighting the NPCs! In D&D, appearances are deceiving. Every battle with NPCs is a huge risk. The PCs weighed that risk and rolled the dice.

If you want to punish the PCs for daring to have pride and self-respect, the next time the PCs attack an annoying NPC, have the NPC kill the whole party. DMs can do that, you know.

I want them to either drop the facsade or repent, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to do it in my situation.

You are having a problem because there is no facade to drop and nothing to repent for.

The PCs are heroes because, for the most part, they do heroic stuff that benefits civilization, like killing monsters and saving towns, etc. If some NPC moron gives them a hard time and the PCs kill them, so be it. Heroes aren't all sunshine and rainbows, and that includes paladins.

IMHO, a DM should never oblige his players to roleplay their PCs as wimps, as some posters are suggesting. PCs being afraid of the cops is wimpy and too 21st century. In real life, you are obliged to tolerate morons so you don't get sued for knocking their teeth out and tossing them into the path of a bus. But D&D isn't real life. In D&D, if an NPC so much as mumbles, "You stink" to a PC, the PC is well within his rights to teach the idiot a lesson. That's what makes D&D fun!

All that a good-aligned PC should do before slaughtering a mouthy NPC is say, "Watch yer mouth." Once. And even the warning is optional. A narrow-eyed glare is sufficient.

If, once warned, the NPC quickly collapses to his knees and begs forgiveness and offers to buy the PC's party a round of beers, then all will probably be forgiven. But if the NPC actually has the AUDACITY to stand his ground, he brings his own doom upon himself.

I think the real question you should be asking yourself is this: Why am I trying to humiliate the PCs over and over? And when the PCs get annoyed by my annoying NPCs, why am I too proud to have my NPCs crap in their pants in terror and beg forgiveness?

In a nutshell, PCs should never have to tolerate annoying NPCs, with the possible exception of old, wrinkly, unarmed female NPC, and even that depends on how annoying she is.

 

[Storm Raven]

You have yet to demonstrate why communicating that is of any importance with regard to the continuing success of the OP's game.

I think you need to go back and actually look at the concerns the OP voiced. He is worried that the PCs have decided they can act evil with impunity. Pointing out that they are evil, and their classes should reflect that establishes that this is not the type of thing that can be done with impunity.

The PC's acted, now the DM needs to enforce consequences that fall roughly within the CR/EL guidelines -- like your own previous suggestion to sick a crusading group of 7th level NPC's on them. That was a fine suggestion. A challenging but fair encounter/story arc.

Having a paladin who has turned to evil get converted to being a paladin of slaughter is an entirely natural consequence. And I should have said a 9th level group of NPCs, because 4 5th level PCs are an EL appropriate challenge for the 9th level PCs (i.e. 4 CR 5 creatures are an EL 9 encounter). If the PCs decide to behave like villains, they get reacted to as villains - and probably slaughtered by good heroes.

Except that isn't the idea, or at least it shouldn't be. This thread was a solicitation for practical advice for moving forward, like roguerouge's perfectly sensible suggestion re: the party Paladin becoming a Paladin of Freedom. Only you, SR, seem to think the issue hangs on getting the PC's to publicly confess that they're capital "E" evil. How that would improve their game remains unclear to me. As does the implicit notion that the DM needs to teach the players some sort of lesson.

Rougerouge's suggestion only clouds the issue. The PCs have turned to evil by committing multiple evil acts. Converting the paladin to a CG aligned class simply obscures this fact. If the PCs want to play evil characters, then they should actually play evil-aligned classes. In other words, the DM should simply call a fork a fork. And then they have to live with the attendant consequences such a choice brings.

 

[Mallus]

If the PCs decide to behave like villains, they get reacted to as villains - and probably slaughtered by good heroes.

I firmly believe that villains should be as playable as heroes. Not that I'm convinced that the OP's players fully qualify as villains yet.

Look, it seems pretty clear that you believe that certain players choices should shut the campaign down. I don't. I look for ways to keep fairly challenging and entertaining my players.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I think you need to go back and actually look at the concerns the OP voiced. He is worried that the PCs have decided they can act evil with impunity. Pointing out that they are evil, and their classes should reflect that establishes that this is not the type of thing that can be done with impunity.

(snip)

Rougerouge's suggestion only clouds the issue. The PCs have turned to evil by committing multiple evil acts. Converting the paladin to a CG aligned class simply obscures this fact. If the PCs want to play evil characters, then they should actually play evil-aligned classes. In other words, the DM should simply call a fork a fork. And then they have to live with the attendant consequences such a choice brings.

"The PC's" didn't decide anything or do anything. Not being real, they're sort of handicapped in that respect. What happened was that the players got a little disconnected from the in-game reality and forgot to roleplay their characters in their excitement about winning. Such a thing is easy to do in D&D, where most problems can be resolved by killing something.

Saying "the PCs have turned to evil" rather misses the point, because the players haven't roleplayed a turn to evil. I'm sure when the player of the paladin remembers that his paladin is supposed to be a good guy, he has the PC act like a good guy. The evil things the players had the PCs do happened not because the players made a conscious decision to have the PCs do bad things but because the players plain forgot that killing NPCs could be considered murder and evil. In the very sanitized combat of D&D where it's all rolling dice and marking down hitpoints, it's easy for a player to feel no more guilt about killing an NPC than they would about taking a pawn in chess.

 

[Mallus]

In the very sanitized combat of D&D where it's all rolling dice and marking down hitpoints, it's easy for a player to feel no more guilt about killing an NPC than they would about taking a pawn in chess.

Storm Raven doesn't like to differentiate between the killing of NPC's, chess pieces, or actual people.

 

[Mallus]

IThe lesson at least needs to be: select the right kind of character classes for the game you want to play.

It's a awkward mix, I'll give you that.

A typical paladin is not appropriate for being a wanton, muderous outlaw or for any campaign where the characters are going to be predominantly evil... at least not without a lot of story planning by the player and DM.

All that's really needed is consent from the players and the DM. It's not hard to apply a thin frosting of rationalization on the OP's campaign, and I tried to point out earlier, cheap rationalizations for wanton violence has been a D&D tradition since the first 1e paladin set a nursery of orc babies on fire with his flask of oil.

I'd have the character rebuild the character.

That's a perfectly good option, too.

The tool (character class) does not fit the work it is being put to (the PC's behavior in the campaign).

The wry cynic in me says that the tool (wonderful pun there) is being used precisely for the work it was intended to do; the killing of imaginary people.