D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

Maybe they simply mistook the situation for what logically was intended to be scripted next and simply acted.

Indeed - it could be a simple misunderstanding of how long the railroady bit was intended to last.

While we can ask in all seriousness why good people might go crazy and kill other good people, these are just fictional characters, it can be a minor misunderstanding, a whim, or maybe even a signal that the players are tired of playing railroad cars. I don't really know, but I wouldn't even say it rises to the level of a quirk, its just today's action at ye old table. I'd point out that when there's low buy in to the PC's personalities to start with, because they probably just went along with whatever the GM threw at them, they might not even really have any specific commitment to being 'good' or 'evil' (and alignment is just something that got written on a character sheet). These might be fairly recently created PCs too.

Good point, in that we're not told how long this campaign has been running and-or how long those PCs have been active in it.

 

[Lanefan]

No because the OP says he’s not a fan of talking to players and that no good comes from such “talks”(the scare quotes are in the OP). He thinks a viable solution is to kill the characters and then reset the setting with some time travel.

So it seems. My position is that the OP's propsed solution is the wrong way to proceed.

So… yeah. Just rewinding and saying “let’s try this again” seems pretty reasonable by comparison.

IMO, however, this is also the wrong way to proceed.

The way to proceed is forward. What's done is done and has become established in the fiction, and the only questions now revolve around what comes next.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Can you imagine the other DM coming back and you being like, "Hey, bro. Got rid of all those pesky friends you used to have. A real win for the table am I right?"

 

[Lanefan]

Presume a local 2nd level priest turns up murdered (by the PCs, over some petty grievance). A young man who was friends with the aforesaid high priest.

Leaving aside the fact he likely gets Raised from the dead by his mentor and tells him exactly what happens in person, Speak with Dead is a 3rd level Cleric spell. 'Who killed you' is the first question. Failing that we have Commune at 5th level to ID the perp, and then ask where they are at present (plus one more question). Legend Lore is 5th level and that gives you information on the target. Scrying is 5th level, and lets you pinpoint where they are. Zone of Truth is 2nd level and permits a thorough interrogation.

In a different context, it's spells like these that make D&D awful for running any kind of who-dun-it setup.

I consider it a win to discard players who write 'LG' on their character sheet, and then go around murder-hobo-ing worse that Ted Bundy, slaughtering other people for nothing more than a few copper or a petty grievance.

Particularly after I've already spoken to them about such behavior, why it's in direct violation of the alignment they choose and what we discussed at session zero, and they choose to continue doing it anyway.

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to, at session 0, say something like "You've all written an alignment on your character sheet, and that's fine; but your in-character actions will largely determine your alignment going forward without regard for what it says on your sheet."

Problem solved.

Test my patience as DM and you'll be looking for another table. I'm firm, but fair, and don't play with argumentative players, sooks, murder-hobo brats or anyone of that nature.

What's a sook?

I also very much take the stance that when it comes to playing characters, anything goes. It's not my place as DM to tell you how to play your characters.

You want to play evil incarnate? Fine. You want to play a saint? Fine. The setting will react to you in ways that more or less make sense, never mind the rest of the party might have things to say as well and those things might be said with violence.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1. Not a good idea to surrender control of ones campaign if you're not willing to see it go down in flames in just one session. Yes, it's just that easy...
2. Don't let that &$%* just HAPPEN when you're in charge. Bring game play to a SCREAMING HALT and find out just what the F the players think the game direction is going to go when they do this. TALK THEM OUT OF IT. In particular, since it's not YOUR game you're accepting responsibility for you REFUSE to permit it to go down without EXPRESS permission from the actual DM. Personally, if I were the temp DM I'd just END the whole session at that point. If I were the full DM I'd end the whole campaign RIGHT THERE and tell them all we're starting over - and this time if they want it to be an EVIL-oriented campaign they'd damn well better say so up front. Otherwise they can damn well stick to the alignments they chose. THIS crap is why alignments exist - so that when the PC's just go from good guys to full-on murderhobo FOR NO REASON, the DM can bash them upside the head with appropriate penalties and consequences. But that's only if the players INSIST on being that stupid. You don't just stammer and sweat and just WATCH as the players gleefully burn down the whole f'ing game. You're the DM - so ACT LIKE IT. (Maybe that seems harsh, but it's earned...)
3. So now you have a big batch of EVIL PC's. Consequences are surely awaiting - and if they aren't then you may as well just step down from the DM chair now. In any case the direction of the entire game has just turned on a dime. Whomever is going to bother picking up the pieces and reassembling a campaign from this needs to accept that as job #1 before the game can really go anywhere productive from here.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Consequences are surely awaiting - and if they aren't then you may as well just step down from the DM chair now.

Step down before deciding on 'consequences'ing someone else's game to death.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden , @hawkeyefan - I agree with everything you posted. Like I wrote before: there's nothing wrong with the DM limiting the choices presented to the player(s) in order to avoid unwanted outcomes. (Unwanted by the players, unwanted by the DM, or both.)

BUT some folks have been very vocal about the DM manipulating the fiction behind the scenes like this, and they might not appreciate these limitations. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

Well, my point was that there's nothing "behind the scenes" about this--nor particularly "manipulative."

I talked, at length, with my players about the kind of world I wanted to run, and the kind of world they wanted to play in. I shared my preferences, and they shared theirs. I did whatever I could to support whatever they brought to the table. Of course, it helped that I know these folks personally, but even if we were strangers, I would have done much the same, just been a bit more cautious and making more allowance for unexpected responses.

If a player ever wishes to truly take their character off the cliff, to pass the "moral event horizon," I would most certainly work with them. But there will be consequences for those actions, and one of those consequences would be that the PC would get an N appended to the front. I would--quite happily--coordinate with them on how to develop this new villainous NPC, check with them to see what that character's behavior would be, solicit feedback to make sure I was staying true to the concept, etc. But I would not continue to run the game for said character anymore.

I stated this, openly and explicitly, to my players--I don't run games for evil PCs. That's a me problem, not a them problem; I'm quite well aware that other people can run that sort of game and make it awesome. I don't believe I can. In Dungeon World terms, I would fail to "be a fan of the characters" if they went full, unrepentant evil. Both of those descriptors are essential: again, morally grey is great, and repentance/reluctance/"I tried so hard to find another way"/etc. is honestly almost better. But being "evil and loving it," as it were, just...isn't for me.

Beyond that, I'm not sure how one can be any more or less "manipulative" than a DM who, for example, portrays every opponent as an absolute rat bastard who would sell his grandmother for a quick buck, in a world where mercy is a mistake only idiotic simpletons make and heroism is a sucker's game you exploit ruthlessly. Whatever adjudications you make, you will incentivize some behavior and not other behavior. I choose--as I told my players--to run a world where darkness is very real, and very dangerous, but not oozing from every pore. A few enemies cannot be reasoned with, but most can, if you can get through to them (but what might that take?). A few problems truly can't be solved without violence, but most can...depending on what price you're willing to pay or how hard you're willing to work. A few creatures are simply too monstrous to truck with, but those are things like mindflayers and other obligatory-murder types. Etc. You want to help make the world a better place, you have to choose to be better--and that can mean having to sacrifice a lot of what you want in order to give someone you don't really like the things they want.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So it seems. My position is that the OP's propsed solution is the wrong way to proceed.

IMO, however, this is also the wrong way to proceed.

The way to proceed is forward. What's done is done and has become established in the fiction, and the only questions now revolve around what comes next.

I mean, if a game I ran somehow got to a point where no one was happy, then I'd be open to all possibilities. Having said that, I'm reasonably certain that nothing quite like this would happen in a game I ran. So while I agree with you generally... you should want to move forward and honor what's come before... I think this case is unique enough to warrant a different approach. And there could conceivable be other examples where that makes sense. It's all pretend and it's meant to be enjoyable, so if it's become otherwise, this whole "we move forward or we stop playing" approach seems misplaced and counterproductive.

If I was the returning DM, I'd strongly consider just rewinding and skipping the events that happened while I was out. Not to avoid consequences for play, but because things had gone awry while I wasn't there, and it seems no one is happy. The DM seemed surprised according to the OP, and maybe the players, too. It's hard to say how they view things based on the OP. But there's nothing wrong with a do over in a case like this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, if a game I ran somehow got to a point where no one was happy, then I'd be open to all possibilities. Having said that, I'm reasonably certain that nothing quite like this would happen in a game I ran. So while I agree with you generally... you should want to move forward and honor what's come before... I think this case is unique enough to warrant a different approach. And there could conceivable be other examples where that makes sense. It's all pretend and it's meant to be enjoyable, so if it's become otherwise, this whole "we move forward or we stop playing" approach seems misplaced and counterproductive.

If I was the returning DM, I'd strongly consider just rewinding and skipping the events that happened while I was out. Not to avoid consequences for play, but because things had gone awry while I wasn't there, and it seems no one is happy. The DM seemed surprised according to the OP, and maybe the players, too. It's hard to say how they view things based on the OP. But there's nothing wrong with a do over in a case like this.

If the original DM and all the players are in favor, sure. Just not how I'd run it. Better IMO to either move forward or start over rather than load an earlier save game.

 

[Flamestrike]

Where does it say the PCs are good-aligned? Their character sheets?

Meaningless if their actions in play say different.

No it's not meaningless. There are multiple game effects that key to alignment, plus it's cosmically - in game - relevant (where they go on death).

In my games, mass murders are not Good aligned. Feel free to run it otherwise in yours.

Neither of those is a win for the table.

The first is a loss for everyone: the DM has no players, and the players have no game.

I have tons of players. Just no whiny murder-hobos. They can do that naughty word at other tables; not mine.