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

[Helmet]

What a lot of you clearly don't get is that insults in D&D-land should be extremely rare and always of a serious nature. Imagine insulting somebody with a gun on their hip in the Old West. Such behavior would be perilous. D&D is like that, on steroids.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me go around insulting men who are bigger and stronger than them in real life? Show of hands? None? Gosh, why not? The law will prosecute the guy who beats you to a pulp, so what are you worried about?

Maybe, just maybe, you people who think having NPCs insult adventurers is sensible and commonplace and realistic, when in fact you are wrong and wrong and wrong.

 

[Herobizkit]

Resorting to lethal violence is the staple of D&D. Really. It's no surprise that the PC's chose to lop off Vincent's head - he's no different than any other monster that they face on a daily basis.

That said, the OP's players are clearly disinterested in moral/ethical debates and prefer to play a beer n' pretzels kick-down-the-door type game. OTOH, the OP want to introduce a sense of realism and present plots that have meaning and explore the human condition.

In the above example, the paladin definitely acted against the laws of the state, and that's a no-no. In fact, that would probably be a chaotic act. No losing paladinhood, but the player might want to atone (or the OP may want to enforece an atonement by making the pally lose some class abilities) for a chaotic act... YMMV. (Paladins are a dicey bunch - the DM and player must be crystal clear as to what the paladin code means and what LG means before anyone should even play a Paladin. Search this site for paladin threads to see what I mean.) Killing a person in defense of a dead woman's wishes... not evil. Not NICE, but not evil.

 

[Storm Raven]

What a lot of you clearly don't get is that insults in D&D-land should be extremely rare and always of a serious nature. Imagine insulting somebody with a gun on their hip in the Old West. Such behavior would be perilous. D&D is like that, on steroids.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me go around insulting men who are bigger and stronger than them in real life? Show of hands? None? Gosh, why not? The law will prosecute the guy who beats you to a pulp, so what are you worried about?

The question here, however, is not whether insulting people in this sort of scenario would be a wise course of action for the insulting party. The question is whether the nonevil response of the insultee would be to kill the offender. The answer is, pretty clearly, no. Killing someone because they insulted you is an evil act, and a pretty clear cut one at that.

You might think an NPC is foolish for insulting the PCs, but that doesn't make killing the NPC any less of an evil act for the PCs.

(And yes, I have insulted men who were bigger and stronger than me. And they didn't kill me, or even respond with violence. Why didn't they? Probably because they were civilized individuals who knew that the consequences for doing so would be entirely too severe for their liking.)

 

[Storm Raven]

Killing a person in defense of a dead woman's wishes... not evil. Not NICE, but not evil.

No, in the scenario presented, it is an evil act. There really isn't any room to maneuver on this one. They attacked and killed someone who asked that their own child be turned over to them. Someone who had the authority of law on his side, and who we have been given no reason to believe is evil. We have a very vague request from a dead woman, with no reason given, but that's certainly no justification for murder. And this isn't even the first time the PCs have jumped a scenario to murderous levels without a real justification.

 

[Mallus]

I don't see certain choices as shutting the campaign down, I see the campaign world reacting in appropriate ways to the choices made by the characters.

That depends on the reaction, doesn't it?

Why is it unreasonable to expect the same thing to happen in reverse if the PCs assume the role of the brigands?

It's not. You'll should note that I agreed with you about that.

This is an entirely predictable and reasonable consequence of acting in an evil manner; to wit: you bring down the retribution of good aligned heroes upon your head.

Having good aligned NPC's attempt to bring down retribution on the party is fine, deliberately rigging the results in not. Recall that you previously wrote:

- and probably slaughtered by good heroes

The timbre of this and other posts indicate that you want the PC's to lose now that they have, in your opinion, changed alignments. It goes beyond meting out logical consequences or challenging opponents; you've stopped being an impartial referee and are now, at the very least, cheerleading for the NPC's to defeat the PC's.

Can you see how that's not a good role for a DM to be in? That way leads to rigging the game. If you changed the 'probably' to 'possibly', we'd be in agreement.

 

[Storm Raven]

The timbre of this and other posts indicate that you want the PC's to lose now that they have, in your opinion, changed alignments. It goes beyond meting out logical consequences or challenging opponents; you've stopped being an impartial referee and are now, at the very least, cheerleading for the NPC's to defeat the PC's.

Can you see how that's not a good role for a DM to be in? That way leads to rigging the game. If you changed the 'probably' to 'possibly', we'd be in agreement.

The reason it becomes "probably" is simply math. The 5th level PCs become an appropriate encounter for a party of 4 9th level PCs (since the PCs are EL 9). That's who is likely to hunt them down. It is unlikely that 4 5th level PCs will survive such and encounter, and as a result, the PCs will probably get slaughtered. This is a logical and reasonable consequence of becoming evil.

If you start behaving like villains, the campaign world reacts to you like villains. Most villains get eliminated - usually by heroes. Think about this:

"A terrified peasant finds you party in a bar - in a quiet voice he begs for your help against a band of mercenaries turned murderers. He was unfortunate enough to witness these murderers engage in an unprovoked attack upon an "Arbiter" - a direct agent of the king, who they killed, beheaded, and then burned his body. He doesn't want to get killed as a witness, and asks that you protect him, or bring the killers to justice yourself. The king will probably reward anyone who helps bring down those who murdered his chosen agent."

"You check into this cutthroat band of mercenaries a little more, and discover rumors that they had previously killed some of their own companions as well, apparently for no reason."

If a typical group of PCs got this request, what do you suppose they would do? Yeah, they'd hunt down the PC either before or after getting some sort of sanction from the king to do so. So, the NPC heroes would probably take up this task as well, and before you know it, the PCs find they have probably bitten off more than they could chew.

 

[Mallus]

The reason it becomes "probably" is simply math.

That's not math at all. That's DM Fiat. Used badly, I might add.

The 5th level PCs become an appropriate encounter for a party of 4 9th level PCs (since the PCs are EL 9).

Except you're not dealing with "9th level PC's". Those are the NPC's. The PC's are the 5th level guys, remember? The players are still the protagonists of the campaign, even when they do something you don't like. Using the EL guidelines like that, the PC's should wind up dead and the NPC party should be down %25 of their resources. After every single encounter.

So like I said, you're advocating rigging the results...

That's who is likely to hunt them down.

If the DM decides so, yes.

This is a logical and reasonable consequence of becoming evil.

In a campaign world where the DM has decided the PC's have to be good. Rigging, see?

Most villains get eliminated - usually by heroes.

In every single campaign? What if the PC's are the villains? This isn't logic, it's playstyle preference gussied up as logic.

 

[Storm Raven]

Except you're not dealing with "9th level PC's". Those are the NPC's. The PC's are the 5th level guys, remember? The players are still the protagonists of the campaign, even when they do something you don't like. Using the EL guidelines like that, the PC's should wind up dead and the NPC party should be down %25 of their resources. After every single encounter.

They may be protagonists, but if they align themselves against the organized, cooperative, generally efficient societies then they get a reponse directed by organized, cooperative and generally efficient individuals. At that point, their life become much harder.

In a campaign world where the DM has decided the PC's have to be good. Rigging, see?

Not rigging, just a natural consequence of turning evil. See?

In every single campaign? What if the PC's are the villains? This isn't logic, it's playstyle preference gussied up as logic.

Villains almost always lose. They especially almost always lose in the fiction of the genre. You can make all the protestations you want, but that's the cold hard fact of becoming an evil character. Once you become evil, others don't trust you (even, in many cases, other evil individuals), good heroes will band together and work against you, and you are likely to find yourself living in the wilderness chased by powerful forces working in concert to bring you down. Enjoy your probably short and exciting life.

 

[cr0m]

I think its helpful to separate the the situation with Vincent and the baby from the fight with the NPC guards, because we really don't have enough information about the NPC guard situation.

The Vincent situation is an opportunity for some GREAT gaming though. Here's a guy who is ruthless, arrogant and has the law on his side--a very worthy opponent for your ruthless and arrogant PCs.

The mother asked the PCs not to let Vincent find out but he found out anyway and came to collect the child. Fine. Seems like the DM dropped the ball by letting Vincent find out, since that's where the big conflict was.

So then the players were in uncharted territory. The mother doesn't trust Vincent, apparently, but they don't know why. When Vincent starts acting suspicious, they fight and kill him. Again, I think the DM dropped the ball by not giving the players much to work with--there's nothing worse than a close-mouthed NPC in conflict with the PCs. That's basically giving them no other options than to fight or give.

If I'm the DM, here's what I do. Get the PCs to contact the mother again, via their Speak with Dead spell or other divinations. Go with Vincent being an evil, evil bastard. The child is extremely important. The King *must* know the truth about this child! For some reason that any DM worth his salt can sort out...

Unfortunately, the King has just declared the PCs outlaws, and all his men are gunning for them. Except for the other Arbiter, but he can't help them directly without risking the same fate.

Instant awesome.

As for the NPC guards that they murdered... there's not enough information there, but it does sound like they were acting out their adolescent fantasies and killing people who bothered them. Sounds like a good time to roll out some atonement.

The atonement is doing whatever the frack is necessary to protect the child and see to it that he does not fall into the wrong hands. This *must* cost the PCs everything. They should lose all their non-portable wealth. Their families are thrown in prison and killed. Anyone who helps them is an outlaw. Their old friends turn on them. And most importantly NONE OF THE MAGIC SHOPS WILL SELL TO THEM! ZOMGWTFBBQ!

 

[Mallus]

They may be protagonists, but if they align themselves against the organized, cooperative, generally efficient societies then they get a reponse directed by organized, cooperative and generally efficient individuals.

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that you used the EL/CR guidelines incorrectly. In fact, you reversed the actual rules so that the NPC's win all the time, and the PC's are nothing more than a resource speed bump.

At that point, their life become much harder.

Naturally.

Villains almost always lose. They especially almost always lose in the fiction of the genre.

Ergo, certain player choices end the campaign. Like the choice to become villains. So people can't play villains in your games, and you advice other DM's to do likewise. Got it. No more to be said.