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

[takyris]

Here's the thing: considered by whom? ...
Does it make a difference if good is absolute, but ignored?

That campaign sounds interesting, and a far cry from "I want to play a game in which my guys can attack and kill anyone who talks to them in a disrespectful manner because we're extreme heroes and because this one Arthurian Romance I read did it, it must be okay, and I'm not an antisocial jackass for wanting to roleplay it!"

 

[Elf Witch]

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).

I think we are on the same page.

I know I stand up a lot for DMs right to have fun too. But I do believe that a good DM tries to make the game fun for everyone.

In my game I had not planned on having corruption in the churches be a part of the campaign. One of the players wanted to play a cleric/paladin who ferrets it out. I changed a few things and fit it in.

My one player loves puzzles not my favorite I will admit but I have put them in the game.

As the DM I am having fun because I am getting to help tell a story about epic heroes and the changes they are bringing to the world. In my world there have never been any paladins or many priests who could cast divine magic.

My PCs will become the heroes of legend with spells named sfter them.

 

[Fenes]

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.

It is meant to be pretty clear. Feudalism is evil. Period.

 

[robertliguori]

It is meant to be pretty clear. Feudalism is evil. Period.

Eh, I'd say that feudalism is evil contingent on human nature. When you can not only trivially root out corruption, but literally call down a good and wise angel from the heavens and explain "Look, we had to kill the previous king a bit on account of the slavery and the wars and all. Can you stand in as regent until we drum up an acceptable infant heir for you to raise?"

I'd say that feudalism is not in and of itself evil, but encourages evil, and pretty much requires people not to be people to stay nonevil over time. This is a problem in reality; it is not in D&D.

 

[Fenes]

Eh, I'd say that feudalism is evil contingent on human nature. When you can not only trivially root out corruption, but literally call down a good and wise angel from the heavens and explain "Look, we had to kill the previous king a bit on account of the slavery and the wars and all. Can you stand in as regent until we drum up an acceptable infant heir for you to raise?"

I'd say that feudalism is not in and of itself evil, but encourages evil, and pretty much requires people not to be people to stay nonevil over time. This is a problem in reality; it is not in D&D.

Of course it's not a problem in D&D, I am just noting that by our modern standards, a feudal system is evil since it violates basic human rights.

In D&D, it can be good, neutral or evil.

 

[billd91]

Of course it's not a problem in D&D, I am just noting that by our modern standards, a feudal system is evil since it violates basic human rights.

In D&D, it can be good, neutral or evil.

And yet the feudal system was developed in response to various crises developing out of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, so it replaced total lack of security with security. Not as good as modern Western values, by modern standards, perhaps, but in some ways you had to take what you could get.

 

[billd91]

I would count all of those as poorly designed. If there are that many high leveled characters in rinky little one-horse towns, why do you bother having adventurers?

Whether or not a rinkydink little town has higher leveled characters or not could depend a lot on its history. Hommlett has a fairly recent history of considerable violence and is still known to be badgered by bandits, all as a legacy of the Temple of Elemental Evil. Any consideration of whether or not a location should be able to support higher level characters should include the local history and danger level.
A frontier town could have more higher level characters than a town in the well settled and patrolled core, even if smaller, simply because there's more opportunity to grow through the standard mechanic of life and death conflict.

 

[NilesB]

So now evil actions are actually good?

Well, according to the majority of posters on this thread protecting an infant from abduction is an unforgivably malign act.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

The child in question is the NPCs son. Killing a person for demanding that you turn over his child qualifies as a malign and wicked act in my book. I am certain any parent would be apalled at the thought of anyone, let alone strangers they barely knew, telling them they could not take their offspring with them. The only surprising part about the demand for his child was that he did not also demand his daughter. Perhaps he felt he could be a good caretaker for a male child, but lacked the ability or lifestyle to raise a female child.

 

[haakon1]

If a player plays a paladin, I don't try to make them fall, or punish the PC in game, if they are about to commit something I deem evil I'd talk to the player before it happens, since I assume that a paladin has a strong enough sense of what's right and good that he'd not slip into evil without a clear, and informed decision by the player.
On the other hand, paladins are so special in my campaign, most common people rever them as god's champion, they don't see them as stick in the muds, lawful-stupid bullies, etc.

Nod. That fits my campaign, except the bit about being revered -- I'd say no more so than clerics for their religious nature, but they are often the "face" of a party and the hero of bardic renditions of the party's deeds. But the "hero" could just as easily be a Fighter.