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

[Storm Raven]

No, but encounters shouldn't be deliberately campaign-ending either, as SR's example was. If you want end the game you're running, just say so, don't try and obscure that with a lot of talk about the fundamental Rousseauvian goodness of D&D societies and their efficiency at eliminating miscreants.

Except they are only campaign ending if you expect the characters to get away with their evil behaviour and not suffer a penalty for it. Anbd expect that they will be able to defeat those sent against them. I, again, refer to the Butch Cassidy example - the Pinkertons were far out of their league, yet the "campaign" (movie, in that case) didn't end. They simply had to run away and stay on the run. No one ever said life as an evil PC was easy.

Sure, but what SR was advocating was a more systematic stamping out of evil PC's, not a specific player-triggered encounter that exceeds normal EL.

When the PC's become villains, they become the encounter.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.

Emphasis mine, to which I would respond: This is a game; fairness should always be expected, even demanded.

SR, you're fighting an uphill battle here, particular when you make statements like this. I'm not saying you meant it this way, but perhaps you can see why it might remind me of a child who threatens to take his toys away when his friends don't play the way he wants?

It's that attitude that Mallus and others are rejecting. One doesn't have to allow evil PCs in play, but if the situation arises it should still be dealt with fairly. Let me tell you, having bungled a few games myself, that players do not really appreciate when DMs try and teach them lessons.

 

[Kraydak]

...

Having the local authorities hire the fantasy equivalent of the Pinkertons is not "freaking out". It is behaving very much fairly.

But then, why are the PCs having *any* adventures at all? A world in which uppity PCs get unceremoniously offed is a world without adventuring opportunities, because those opportunities also got unceremoniously offed.

Let us be honest here: the OP's PCs whacked an, at best, morally grey person. Once the second arbitrator showed up and acted the way he did, the kingdom has a *whole* lot of explaining to do if it wants the title of "not evil". The DM is running the NPCs as being neutral to evil, and complaining when the players treat them as such. That isn't being fair.

Further, the PCs whacked one of the the kingdom's elite: there *aren't* a slew of Pinkertons available to hire. That has been established. Spontaneously generating high level do-gooders to whack the PCs wouldn't be fair in either their spontaneous generation, *or* their targeting of the PCs (who might be violent, but haven't acted all that evilly if evilly at all).

If you actually think you are running a self-consistent world, you should probably go back and review your assumptions. From my side of the computer screen, it really looks like a vengeful DM advocating the execution of PCs that stray from the rails (and unfair rails at that, where NPCs get to act evilly without alignment modifications but PCs eat alignment changes for the most subjective of acts).

 

[hamishspence]

Evil and good in game

"I want my kid back" is not an insult. Its a statement.

While the initial post didn't mention any specific threats, its possible that they were made in game but not mentioned here. Did the Arbitor say "you will give me my kid back Or Else?" Unspecified threat: PC's might be expected to ready themselves, though pre-emptive strikes might be uncalled for.

Baldur's Gate game has guards appear when PCs attack NPC's first. This is a default reaction. On the other hand an NPC can "Go hostile" before actually attacking. They will be advancing weapons drawn though. Killing even the most annoying (Noober) NPCs will lower reputation.

It was mentioned that the PCs will draw weapons in a fistfight. Thats sounds a lot like Belkar in On the Origin of PCs "They shouldn't have brought fists to a knife-fight" "It wasn't a knife-fight until you started stabbing people!" "My point exactly."

It is possible (rare) to play Evil, heroic characters. These are the guys who resort to nasty tactics against enemies, the people who kill innocents for a "good cause" torture bad guys, etc. A lot like the Angel TV series. Or many others. The question is, do the players want to play that sort of game?

I'd say discuss it with players. Even the Munchkin D20 game has suggestions for making it clear to players that killing NPCs, especially high ranking ones, is generally not a good idea.

 

[Storm Raven]

But then, why are the PCs having *any* adventures at all? A world in which uppity PCs get unceremoniously offed is a world without adventuring opportunities, because those opportunities also got unceremoniously offed.

Just because the world gets around to dealing with threats that happen to be PCs doesn't mean that threats don't exist. You seem to be assuming that there's a finite amount of "threat" in the world, and once it is gone, then everything becomes bunnies and roses.

Let us be honest here: the OP's PCs whacked an, at best, morally grey person. Once the second arbitrator showed up and acted the way he did, the kingdom has a *whole* lot of explaining to do if it wants the title of "not evil". The DM is running the NPCs as being neutral to evil, and complaining when the players treat them as such. That isn't being fair.

You seem to be making a bunch of assumptions here. The most important being that the second individual who identified himself as an Arbiter actually is an Arbiter, and that his discussion with the PCs is actually bona fide, and that his offer to the PCs is actually one which is consistent with his own authority. None of these things are necessarily true.

Further, the PCs whacked one of the the kingdom's elite: there *aren't* a slew of Pinkertons available to hire. That has been established. Spontaneously generating high level do-gooders to whack the PCs wouldn't be fair in either their spontaneous generation, *or* their targeting of the PCs (who might be violent, but haven't acted all that evilly if evilly at all).

That's another huge assumption. How do you know that there aren't a couple dozen other Arbiters spread through the kingdom who would join togeher to bring justice to those who attacked and murdered one of their own (how much effort do policemen put into catching cop-killers)? Or that there aren't other parties of heroes looking to pick up a reward? You simply assume that there aren't any others, based upon no evidence of any sort.

And I dispute your "they haven't acted evilly" claim. They have engaged in two very clearly evil acts, one of which was directed at the government itself. You keep making the claim that the PCs haven't acted evilly, when it is pretty clear they have, and (your moral contortions and unwarranted assumptions notwithstanding), that pretty much eliminates any credibility you might have.

 

[Mallus]

Anbd expect that they will be able to defeat those sent against them.

A campaign won't last long if the DM keeps using opponents the player cannot reasonably defeat -- regardless of the player choices that might have precipitated the situation. Note that I am full of keen observations and practical advice.

I, again, refer to the Butch Cassidy example - the Pinkertons were far out of their league, yet the "campaign" (movie, in that case) didn't end.

I see you're changing your tune a wee bit. Instead of a powerful good-aligned party 'slaughtering' the PC's, they're just giving chase. That's significantly better. I could get on board with that, so long as the DM wasn't just railroading the group into the actual finale of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

No one ever said life as an evil PC was easy.

No PC's life if easy. If they're saints you attack them with Devils. If they're sinners you bedevil them with flights of angels. If they're neutral there's always thugs, pirates and dinosaurs. You'll note this ties right back in with my team jersey analogy from earlier...

Let me tell you, having bungled a few games myself, that players do not really appreciate when DMs try and teach them lessons.

So you've noticed that too?

 

[Storm Raven]

Emphasis mine, to which I would respond: This is a game; fairness should always be expected, even demanded.

Good heroes aren't necessarily entitled to fairness either. If the 4th level PCs decide to trek up the mountain to face the dragon with the legendary reputation, and find a CR 21 monster up there, they may not survive the experience. Choice requires that some options have negative consequences, otherwise you are just engaged in a secret railroad. Engaging in murder and mayhem is pretty much the equivalent to waking the sleeping ogre, and drawing his ire upon your head. Killing the king's man is pretty much the equivalent of taking on the legendary dragon.

 

[Storm Raven]

A campaign won't last long if the DM keeps using opponents the player cannot reasonably defeat -- regardless of the player choices that might have precipitated the situation. Note that I am full of keen observations and practical advice.

Then maybe the players shouldn't have put themselves in that position then.

Choices = consequences.

I see you're changing your tune a wee bit. Instead of a powerful good-aligned party 'slaughtering' the PC's, they're just giving chase. That's significantly better. I could get on board with that, so long as the DM wasn't just railroading the group into the actual finale of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

What do you think the Pinkertons would have done had they caught them? Given them puppies and kittens? I said a group of 9th level PCs would likely hunt them down, and the PCs would probably get slaughtered. The key here is probably, not certainly. Note that Butch and Sundance later drew the ire of the Bolivian army, and were trapped and killed in what you must think is a most unfair way. That's life (or the end of life) as an evildoer though.

No PC's life if easy. If they're saints you attack them with Devils. If their sinners you bedevil them with flights of angels. If they're neutral there's always thugs, pirates and dinosaurs. You'll note this ties right back in with my team jersey analogy from earlier...

And if they are evil, they have limited resources to fall back upon, since society isnt likely to be very supportive of those who fight against the angels, and will probably actively seek to hinder them. Hence, life as an evil PC is usually short and somewhat exciting.

 

[Mallus]

Then maybe the players shouldn't have put themselves in that position then.

Or the DM shouldn't decide to make the consequences unplayable and/or campaign ending. That works too, and it has the added benefit of not pissing off the players.

Note that Butch and Sundance later drew the ire of the Bolivian army, and were trapped and killed in what you must think is a most unfair way.

I think the ending of BC&tSK is wonderful. I also think it's a film and not an on-going D&D campaign, so different criteria apply when considering how fair it is.

That's life (or the end of life) as an evildoer though.

Unless you've been watching The Usual Suspects, in which case the evildoer makes the authorities look like fools and then gets off scot-free. There are more thing in Heaven and Earth dear SR than imagined in your poor, apparently homogeneously good fictional universes.

And if they are evil, they have limited resources to fall back upon...

Sez who? Every D&D setting I've ever seen is effectively Manichean, where both good and evil have elaborate institutional support, with plenty of partisans to be found no matter what color jersey your PC is wearing. Hell, even the common thieves are unionized in most games.

 

[Mallus]

Killing the king's man is pretty much the equivalent of taking on the legendary dragon.

Only if the DM has decided to end the campaign.