D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

Right, they don't have to agree to be arrested, they can break the whole game and apparently threaten to end the campaign instead! I mean, oddly, to my mind its less impacting their autonomy to just say "well, you got framed and you are now in jail" than it is to play out all the non-choices leading there. Its not like jail is, narratively, a bad situation to be in, lots can happen that is fun and interesting, many possible choices!

Again with the shadowy figure's deal, exactly what are the choices here? I mean, sure they 'have a choice', and as every player in this sort of game knows, the expected 'choice' is to go with what the GM obviously prepped! The players certainly didn't choose to be in this situation, its a total railroad.

Did they KNOW that the escape choices actually meant? The problem here is you assume that players understand many things that often are pretty opaque at best. It SEEMS obvious to the GM, but quite often its not at all obvious to the players. And again, they clearly DID NOT have a choice, as the way they approached it is now derailing the whole campaign! That is not a choice.

The fact that you all see this as 'no big deal' or 'player choice' IS what leaves me at a loss for words, to be perfectly honest.

You and I are well-established as very different people. Players always have a choice, and these players didn't actually seem all that upset about how things turned according to the report. They were certainly encouraged to go a particular way, more than I would have done (though of course this isn't the OP's game). But they still  decided to murder all those guards during their escape. That is an act with consequences, and it is astonishing to me that pretending it never happened is considered a good option. Do we know if the players even want that?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do we know if the players even want that?

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

 

[Flamestrike]

Why give them a "false choice?" If your intent, if they say no, is to beat them into submission, why not just say - sorry no evil PCs here and stop. Punishing the players (because that's what's happening) doesn't really contribute to anyone's fun.

Did you miss the bit where that's exactly what I said?

There was no false choice. I made it perfectly clear that 'random repeated acts of murder' are not the sorts of things good aligned PCs do (a discussion that is also had at session zero BTW). If the 'good aligned' PC persists anyway, his alignment is set to 'evil'.

Good means 'altruism, respect for life, charity and avoiding harm to others, unless reasonable in self defence or the defense of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself'. Captain America is Good. If Cap wouldnt do it, neither should your Good aligned PC. Evil means 'harming others'. Frank Castle is evil, because that's what he does - he harms others. Neutral people lack the convictions to go out of their way to help other people, but possess enough empathy to avoid harming others.

That's a discussion had in session zero, and had again with the 'LG' player when he's about to murder some NPC tavern-keeper, and burn down the Tavern because he didnt want to fork out 5 copper for the night.

As to him being hunted down for murder, that's simply the consequences of his actions. If I was running an Evil party, and they engaged in random acts of murder as well, those actions have the same consequences.

Believe it or not, in Faerun (where I run my games), adventuring parties are not rare, and most local lords (responsible for enforcing the law) have access to multiple mid to high level Clerics, Mages, amies, Knights etc and all sorts of shenanigans to track down murderers, and bring them to justice.

Some random peasant in isolation? Probably overlooked. Someone important, or a connected person, or a spate of such murders, or in a town headed by a Lawful creature? Game on.

Take Beregost, a town of under 3000 people. It's headed by a 16th level Cleric (Lathander) who has at his disposal the Flaming Fist (Mages, Clerics, Knights, Champions etc) and 'hunting down and putting an end to powerful adventuring parties causing trouble' is expressly what they do.

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.

Those that dont have such access, hire NPC adventurers to sort it out for them. People like the PCs.

Lords don't just let murders happen, any more than the Cops dont IRL.

How is it a "win" to lose the ENTIRE gaming group?

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.

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.

It's unfortunate that there was a clear clash of styles.

Yeah, and that dude can play his 'style' at a table that wants him.

Like I said, it's a win/ win.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You and I are well-established as very different people. Players always have a choice, and these players didn't actually seem all that upset about how things turned according to the report. They were certainly encouraged to go a particular way, more than I would have done (though of course this isn't the OP's game). But they still  decided to murder all those guards during their escape. That is an act with consequences, and it is astonishing to me that pretending it never happened is considered a good option. Do we know if the players even want that?

I was under the impression, based on the whole question of "what to do?" that there was a desire to figure out how to do something different with the situation. Anyway, perhaps the way things went is EXACTLY what the players absolutely desired and it was a full on player revolt against the railroad! If so, then OK. I mean, I fully support the players if they genuinely wanted to go this way and felt like they were really in control of that and desired to play it out that way. What I would certainly hope NOT to see in that case was some sort of overwhelming GM "well, the city just sends 100's of men to crush you!" kind of thing happen. I have seen GMs react that way to players going 'off the reservation' though. I mean, if they intended to become outlaws or whatever, definitely give them what they want, but let it be a viable choice, that is certainly within the realm of possibility.

 

[Flamestrike]

. What I would certainly hope NOT to see in that case was some sort of overwhelming GM "well, the city just sends 100's of men to crush you!" kind of thing happen.

Why?

What if that's the logical consequence of their actions?

Assume your PCs murder the nephew of the local Lord, or a powerful Priest of Bane, or the head of a local crime family, or a member of a very wealthy merchant family, or even just a number of random commoners in Baldurs Gate. Surely, they could expect the Lord, Church, Family or the Flaming Fist hunting them down with all forces at their disposal as a consequence.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes. Send more souls into the grinder. More XP to make them grow stronger.

Feed the pointless war of escalation in the name of False God Consequences.

 

[Flamestrike]

Feed the pointless war of escalation in the name of False God Consequences.

What are you on about?

If your PCs murder the local Prince, you'll face consequences for that action (his family will seek to hunt you down and kill you).

If your PCs save the life of the local Prince, you'll also face consequences for that action (they'll reward you richly and owe you a powerful favor).

There are no 'False God' consequences there. Just reasonable cause and effect based on the players exercising their agency.

 

[MGibster]

See, if at this point the players or the GM don't want to to play it that way, then campaign's over in my view. To do otherwise is to ignore the consequences of the player's choices. TTRPGs don't have save points, generally speaking. You keep going from where you are or you call it.

I was running a game of Deadlands (alternative horror/fantasy old west game), and the PCs were involved in a shootout in the middle of San Francisco. After a few rounds of shooting, a deputy arrives on the scene and tells everyone, PC and NPCs, not to move. One of the PCs slowly moves his hand towards his hat (which was a mad scientist's device) and the deputy, reasonably fearing for her life, shoots at him. Another PC, a martial artists, rushes the deputy and beats her to death.

Me: Why did you guys kill an officer of the law?
Player: We thought it was suspicious that she showed up.
Me: You thought it was supsicious that a cop showed up in the middle of a gunfight in an urban environment?

I had to pivot a bit, but since they weren't sticking around in San Francisco this wasn't going to ruin the whole campaign, but it did make things a lot more difficult. There are things that players do in a campaign that might spell the end. Sometimes you just can't reasonably pivot. I find it best to pause the action and explain to the players that their actions have conseques.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

 

[FrozenNorth]

I simply do not have the time to manage the paperwork required to ethically perform operant conditioning experiments on human subjects. So I never try to 'teach' my players.

What if there were some sort of research grant involved and you were asked to publish your results? Asking for a friend.