how ignorant can you be?

[laiyna]

I got a player who wished a private bath (its a swan maiden and some privacy is then welcome as a swan) so arranged a big warm water swimming pool for herself. Even a Mage casted a spell around the pool so nobody could look into it, this is very expensive, 3th and higher lvl spells are unknown and lost in this world (player knows this).

The player has an int of 12 and wisdom of 14 and did know that slaves are normal in this town and the general alignment in this town is LN. The next thing happend:

The owner of the pool asks if the player wants any extra services like a mesage or more... The player refuses and states that privacy is all that she wants.
The owner then asks if she wants to have somebody nearby if something comes up, he then garuantees that he will make sure the girl will not be able to tell anything it will see or hear to somebody else. (take into account that this is a very, very expensive hotel, money can buy anything here)
This is accepted without question, I want to be nice and ask the player if he is sure he wants to do this?, several players then make comments that the girl prob wont survive this.

After the player had a nice swim she leaves the swimming pool and just hears before he leaves a death-cry of a girl....

The player is NG (atleast the player claims she is), does this ask for an alignment change (and to what?), and could the player claim she did not know this would happen?

Laiyna

 

[hong]

HOW much did the character pay for this bath?

Even in a money-can-buy-anything society, slaves would be valuable property. You don't go around destroying property willy-nilly, unless you have a very good reason, or you're a fruitcake.

Having a slave killed just to indulge a desire for privacy is pretty far outside the boundaries of most players' concepts of a non-evil society. Your player was perfectly within his/her rights to assume that nothing untoward would happen. And in any case, they said right at the start that they didn't want anyone around. What happened to that?

Bottom line, it's an embarrassing mistake (for you and the player both), but probably not something to change alignment for. Now if there's a consistent pattern of callous behaviour, that's different.

 

[nsruf]

Looks to me like an alignment change for the TOWN is in order. IMO, a thing like this would only happen in a LE society - even if the hotel owner is LE, a LN society should not allow this treatment of slaves. Or maybe the owner is CE with a twisted "the customer is always right" attitude...

 

[laiyna]

She never did see the bill, the bill is being payed by an organization... This will have a few tails.

And a slave is property, killing a slave is something like putting your dog to sleep. Not everybody likes it or agre's with it but it is not a crime. The owner is LE, but the town in general is LN.

It was clear for all players (except I guess the swanmaiden) who witnessed it what would happen from the start, even most players where stunned by it. I agre that it is an extreem case of what would be and not would be allowed, but compleetly within the law.

 

[chatdemon]

Is the Swanmay a divine spellcaster? Ranger or Druid specifically?

If so, instead of an alignment change, you might just take away some spells or whatnot until she atones. Maybe make her go get the body for raising or proper burial or something.

 

[Wicht]

Killing a slave to keep her from talking is awful harsh, especially when it was much easier to merely cut out the tongue.

But if I was the player and you docked me because of the actions of an NPC I would be pretty upset. Now if the Player continues to treat the owner of the hotel in the same fashion, then you might take notice, but in this case give the player the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they did not actually believe the girl would be hurt. In which case she has nothing to atone for. But if she accepts the death and makes no changes to the way in which she acts in the future then she is callous.

 

[hong]

She never did see the bill, the bill is being payed by an organization... This will have a few tails.

And a slave is property, killing a slave is something like putting your dog to sleep.

Could be. It could also be like crashing your Ferrari; ie, not something that happens every day.

Not everybody likes it or agre's with it but it is not a crime. The owner is LE, but the town in general is LN.

It was clear for all players (except I guess the swanmaiden) who witnessed it what would happen from the start, even most players where stunned by it.

Unless this is the latest in a line of incidents where the player has been cruel or malicious, it sounds merely like the lines of communication got crossed somewhere between you and the player. So, what DID happen after the player said they didn't want someone around? Did that get overlooked somehow? Quite possibly they were thinking that they were alone, while you were thinking there was a slave as well.

Handing out in-character penalties would be uncalled for, unless you can say for sure that this isn't what happened.

 

[Buttercup]

As I was reading the first post, I assumed, until the very end that the slave that would be sent would already have been minus a tongue. I assumed that in an establishment like that, such slaves would be quite useful.

But to the point. I don't think it warrants an alignment change *yet.* But as others have said, if the character continues to exhibit such extreme callousness, then I would find a way to make them pay for that.

 

[Tsyr]

I agree with Buttercup... I assumed that the slave was mute and/or blind, or would be mute after the bath at the worst... not that she would be KILLED. Killing a slave, even in an evil society, is not something you do lightly... they are damned expensive. The price to kill a slave involves the loss of the money that cared for the slave to date, as well as potential loss of money from the slaves work later on.

As I see it, the player had no REASON to assume that the slave would be killed. Considering that killing the slave is, of every possible choice, just about the worst for everyone concerned.

I don't think it's the player here who's wisdom is in question... The innkeeper sounds like a borderline deranged physco who doesn't think things out very well.

Furthermore, to be perfectly blunt, from the tone of your post, it sounds (to me) like you killed the slave partly as a form of "punishment" for what the player was doing. Maybe/probably not what you were thinking at the time, logicly, but that's what it sounds like. I PLAY under a DM that does things alot like that, I'm sorta jaded about it I suppose.

 

[laiyna]

Some background information

I never "punish" players in that way. I only give a logical action on all information that I got (thats as GM more then the players). So killing the slave was in intrest of the owner (he gets more money from her death then keeping a troublesome slave alive, he can now put anything on the bill).

And the owner did nothing that was not requested. He first asked if she wanted some "assistance", the replay was clear, privacy first, then he asked if he could garantue the privacy (in his words "I can give you my word that she will not be able to talk about this event ever again") if she would want a servant at hand for any task. And on that she agreed. In the following day (we are in game now 36 hours later) she did no attempt do try to discover what happend (if she did not know) or try to do something.

As a side note, communication by mind or writing and not in speaking is not unheared off. So the only way would be a brain-wipe (whats imposible as far as everybody knows) or death.

Lai