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

[Mallus]

Whereas I don't get off facilitating my friends acting like violent sociopaths.

I can't really blame you for that, but a teeny part of me is thinking: that's the perfect job description for a DM! (seeing as D&D is ultimately about killing things and taking their stuff and so on and so forth).

If I'm trying to run a heroic, or at very least, 'good leaning' game and you start acting like this at my table, I'm very likely to be less than happy and try to put a stop to it.

I didn't mean to come off as critical of your preferences. My criticisms were (supposed to be) directed at the methods some DM's used to 'put a stop to' in-game behavior they didn't approve of. It's always a good idea to talk openly with your players about expectations, campaign direction, and potential problems/dissatisfactions. But it's never a good idea to treat your presumably adult friends like they were children, particularly when you disagree with them over the proper way to enjoy a recreational pursuit.

I don't necessarily like your judgement here, because you're being negative toward people like me who would be unhappy with their players "being jerks".

I didn't mean to come off as judgmental, either. Apologies if that was unclear.

 

[Mallus]

So now evil actions are actually good?

That depends on the quality of the rationalization.

I knew that ignore lists existed for a reason.

PLONK

I find this very hard to believe.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

It's ok Mallus, maybe he'll finally stop talking.

 

[Elf Witch]

The heroes of the Iliad would certainly kill someone for the way they addressed them. Usually with a spear. Also, not all PC's are heroic, not even in the Homeric (Greek) sense, though most are in fact heroic in the Homeric (Simpson) sense...


We're not talking about human beings, we're talking about (usually badly drawn) fictional characters. That changes the context. Personally, I admire plenty of disrespectable fictional characters; Iago, Travis Bickle, Tony Soprano, Gaius Baltar...


Power fantasies often have an ugly side, which is why we frequently relegate them to fictional environments.


There is nothing remotely realistic or simulationist about a setting in which all cop killers are brought to justice, every time, regardless of the circumstances. A setting like that is one dominated by narrative/thematic imperatives --ie, justice always prevails, the 'good guys' always win-- not rigorous simulation.

The heroes of the Illiad would kill if someone insulted them it is part of the culture. I am working on a greek style game. In a game world like that behavior from the PCs like that is acceptable.

Or if you want to play a more gritty game where vikings come and burn and kill and rape the PCs playing vikings would not be considered evil in their own culture.

The issue is what does the DM think is evil in his world. The OP had an issue with the behavior of his players. He is not okay with the paladin playing this way. Personally I think a lot of his problems is that he waited so long to finally try and stop the behavior.

DMs and PCs need to be on the same page as to what is expected in the game world.

In my game the player playing a paladin and I had a discussion ahead of time on how a paladin is expected to behave in my world.

We can debate endlessly over who was right the arbitor or the PCs we can bring in examples from our own games but in the end it does not matter because every DMs world is different amd we were not there so we really don't know exactly what happened. As someone pointed out maybe what the PCs saw as rudeness was something else.

The issue is how to handle it out of game is the best talk to your players.

But in game consquences for actions is how the game should be played. Does that mean if the players turn evil they get hunted down and lose not necessarily. As you point out cop killers are not always brought to justice. But that does not mean that the law ignores the crime.

If you want to play it with some realism then as the DM don't give your investigators DM knowledge roll gather info and set the modifiers based on how much evidence there is. If no one saw what the PCs did and speak with dead does not work then the PCs got away with it this time.

Consquences should be based on the players actions. If they play evil smart reward them for it the same as you would good parties who play smart.

If a group of high level PC kill one of your lawmen then move on it is very possible the ruler will look the other way. But if the PCs keep killing people in your kingdom then you will have to do something to stop them or you lose control of your land. So you bring in bigger guns.

That is not using DM fiat that is just common sense. It is the same in a good game the evil side brings in bigger guns to stop the PCs from thwarting their plans so why would good not do the same.

In Dnd there is no gurantee that the PCs will win. Sometimes the PCs lose and sometimes they win and that is how it should be played regardless of the PCs alignment.

Let the dice decide. The minute you start using your DM power to punish or teach the players the game is over.

I don't think that throwing consquences at PCs that are based on their level is teaching them a lesson it is giving them a challange to overcome based on what has happened in the game before.

 

[Elf Witch]

Our current party is at level 16, and has been at level 14+ for years (We play weekly, but do not give out exp, we only level up when the group decides to, the campaign started back in 2E). It's set in the Forgotten Realms, but with less magic items and mages, and not many if any epic characters. So, the characters are near the top of the "food chain" level-wise.

More important than that however is that they have a very, very good reputation in their country. They battled countless foes of the realm, spoiled plots inside and outside the country, handled diplomatic meetings and put down rebellions. The earned the gratitude of the ruler, and rose in status among the ruling churches, earning titles.

While I am not a "simulation tops everything!" DM, verisimilitude means that unless the group goes directly against the ruler or a church, they can basically do whatever they want. If an NPC is rude to them, especially a foreigner, they could kill said foreigner, and the matter would be handled either by hushing it up, arranging an "it was an accident", or by posthumously condemning the victim. Or by simply ignoring the incident. Or by acepting their deed as justice - after all, they are part of the government. That's in their country, of course. But everyone knows that - and there really are not many who would insult them.

Outside their country, it depends on the situation. When travelling on a diplomatic mission, they have the power of their country behind them (unless they do something really stupid, like starting a war), and if someone is rude or insulting to them, it's usually handled by a duel.

So, if they were in that country from the OP, and the arbiter came to them, and acted in the way described, they'd tell him, quite haughtily, to not mess with them, and to suffer the consequences of attacking not just a representant of the Empire, but also a priestess of one of the ruling churches. If they felt insulted, there'd be a duel challenge, and if refused, most likely the "honorless cur" would be dealt with. And the king of the realm would apologise for having employed a "temporarily insane" idiot. Behind the scenes, there'd be all kind of maneuvers, and some repercussions, but the king would not go to war over this.

But then, the arbiter in my campaign would not have tried to bully them, would probably have been all nice and polite, and gotten the baby without any trouble just for mentioning that he was his father - the group generally respects lawful authorities unless there's something fishy - like said authority refusing to answer basic questions.

I've played the standard campaigns before, where PCs rise in levels, and can flatten mountains, yet are still treated like some dinky mercenaries by nobles. It mostly did not really work out that well, and felt contrived. Once I started adjusting the status of the PCs, and integrating them in the power structure, it went far more smoothly. Power now comes with reputation, respect, status - and responsibility.

The carrot of rewarding PCs with status worked far better than the stick of using high-level NPCs to beat them down. More fun for everyone involved.

And in areas like the City of Brass, the PCs still are pushed around, because they have no weight there. But they know that they can change this.

I have said to you on another thread that I think your games sounds like a fun game and one I would love to play in.

I would like to point out something the PCs in your game have earned the respect of the people and the goverment. The benefit of the doubt would be given to them because of their past deeds.

The PCs in the OP game have not done anything to earn the respect of the King. They killed fellow soldiers who were on their side because they were going to lose a brawl. A brawl that started after the party wizard teased and provoked these soldiers by night after night distrubing their sleep with cantrips.

I think the PCs are playing their characters as psychotic. I don't think the players in your game played their character this way.

 

[Mallus]

Personally I think a lot of his problems is that he waited so long to finally try and stop the behavior.

I agree. The DM had been giving his consent for a while, without ever warning the players OCC that he has becoming uncomfortable with campaign's change in tone/direction.

DMs and PCs need to be on the same page as to what is expected in the game world.

Absolutely.

But I still feel pretty strongly that a DM should indulge his players and their play style preference(s), right up until the point they themselves stop enjoying the game.

The issue is how to handle it out of game is the best talk to your players.

Absolutely.

Consquences should be based on the players actions.

Absolutely.

The minute you start using your DM power to punish or teach the players the game is over.

Absolutely.

I don't think that throwing consequences at PCs that are based on their level is teaching them a lesson it is giving them a challenge to overcome based on what has happened in the game before.

Absolutely.

I've been saying that all along. My point was that in-game consequences need to the playable. When a DM decides that the consequences for a given party action is a no-win situation for the PC's, they should politely fold the campaign (and then drink).

 

[takyris]

I have no interest in playing a game in which people are considered good by their peers for doing actions that I, a real-world 21st-century North American guy, would consider evil. I have no interest in running such a game, either.

Mileage may vary, but "Ah, I can be evil, because this is a different culture that doesn't mind if I act in a manner that would get me labeled a hateful jackass in the real world!" does not fulfill any particular fantasy for me.

Good luck to those for whom it does. Seriously. Not snarky. Not "You need to get help." Not "It sucks to be you." Seriously. Your type of fun is not my type of fun, and I hope we don't end up in a game together and force the DM to choose which type of fun he wants us to have, but if you're doing it in a game and not real life, knock yourself out.

 

[Fenes]

I have no interest in playing a game in which people are considered good by their peers for doing actions that I, a real-world 21st-century North American guy, would consider evil. I have no interest in running such a game, either.

Mileage may vary, but "Ah, I can be evil, because this is a different culture that doesn't mind if I act in a manner that would get me labeled a hateful jackass in the real world!" does not fulfill any particular fantasy for me.

Good luck to those for whom it does. Seriously. Not snarky. Not "You need to get help." Not "It sucks to be you." Seriously. Your type of fun is not my type of fun, and I hope we don't end up in a game together and force the DM to choose which type of fun he wants us to have, but if you're doing it in a game and not real life, knock yourself out.

So, I take it you don't have knights, kings, or any other feudalisit stuff in your game? Nor any non-democratic country that's considered good?

After all, just by refusing democracy a king is evil by our standards.

 

[robertliguori]

I have no interest in playing a game in which people are considered good by their peers for doing actions that I, a real-world 21st-century North American guy, would consider evil. I have no interest in running such a game, either.

Mileage may vary, but "Ah, I can be evil, because this is a different culture that doesn't mind if I act in a manner that would get me labeled a hateful jackass in the real world!" does not fulfill any particular fantasy for me.

Good luck to those for whom it does. Seriously. Not snarky. Not "You need to get help." Not "It sucks to be you." Seriously. Your type of fun is not my type of fun, and I hope we don't end up in a game together and force the DM to choose which type of fun he wants us to have, but if you're doing it in a game and not real life, knock yourself out.

Here's the thing: considered by whom? In D&D, there are absolute, observable answers to moral questions. You can determine whether or not a given action egregiously violates the dignity of sentient beings by having a paladin do it, then check the paladin for his powers.

That being said, one of my campaign worlds has a kingdom is experiencing an institutional level of corruption. For a while, the kingdom was solidly LG, if a bit heavy on the L, until a series of events showed how massively profitable necromancy could be under certain conditions. After all, it was just being done on animals and nonhumanoids slain in battle or banditry, right? They'd be left to rot on the ground anyway. Why not get some work out of them? Why not a lot of work, in fact? When the G religion objected, it was politely informed that its state religion status had just become negotiable, and a lot of the high-level clergy decided to leave rather than start a war. This nation has a very clear idea on what is good and what is evil in the campaign world; they just have decided that if the definition of good includes sending living troops into battle unnecessarily and the definition of evil includes suddenly-tripled harvests as undead oxen and horses pull ploughs tirelessly, they will quite cheerfully sign up for team evil. They don't do the random killing or tyrantry; the leadership of the kingdom has decided to do what's best for the kingdom, and that currently includes a lot of evil. If the forces of good enable the mass-production of deathless for industrial use, the kingdom will hop from evil to good in a heartbeat, but for now, evil achieves their goals, so they do evil.

Does it make a difference if good is absolute, but ignored?

 

[takyris]

So, I take it you don't have knights, kings, or any other feudalisit stuff in your game? Nor any non-democratic country that's considered good?

After all, just by refusing democracy a king is evil by our standards.

Who is the "we" in this "our"?

In the fantasy-world D&D game my group plays, there's a line between the new-blood nobles, who mistreat the servants and look down on the peasants, and the old-blood nobles who respect the people and see themselves as defenders of the people. It may not be realistic, but I didn't sign on to play a Reality Roleplaying Game.

And please don't play Socratic Garbage with me. When I can see you loading the question, you're not loading it very well.