How much backlash is too much?

[Mark CMG]

Having a group of lawful good knights close the portal the adventurers left open is a great example of the setting coming to life around the adventurers. The idea that there are other actors out there adds verisimilitude to the game-world - it makes it feel like a real place.

Dynamic settings are a good thing.

 

[Umbran]

As others have noted, if you don't like having evil PCs in the game, as GM, you didn't have to allow it. Why did you?

That being said - the PCs are probably stronger than most folks in the village, right? The villagers probably aren't stupid - there's a wizard among them, and he's got to have a working brain, right?

So, a few will be incensed. But, if they are bright, they won't try to run the PCs out on a rail, because whoever tries it will likely get their butts kicked, and probably be killed by these PCs.

If I were the wizard, I'd advise the rest of the town "Stay the course. Keep them here. We'll send to the knight's Order HQ, and tell them what has happened. They will send reinforcements to deal with these ruffians." Then, the town will help set the PCs up in a trap, where a group of knights more powerful than the first will deal with them...

 

[haakon1]

I agree that dynamic settings are a good thing. I can't imagine DMing without that approach.

But we don't know enough about the setting here to know what should happen. I use Umbran's approach of thinking about situations from the point of view, knowledge, and personality of individual NPCs, and deciding what they would do.

For example, who is the innkeeper? If he's an old "retired" (in hiding from his enemies) member of the Greyhawk Thieves' Guild, with connections to smugglers another gang of marauders, like one of the innkeepers in my campaign, he'd just assassinate the PC's by poisoning their food. First they'd get a whiff of it is when they are rolling d20s on their Fortitude saves for Dark Reaver Powder (DC18, 2d6Con initial damage, secondary for 1d6 Con + 1d6 Str in D&D 3.5e rules) -- good luck to them on that!

Also, who "runs" the town? If it's part of a feudal system, you can bet requests for assistance are going up the chain of command. They might send a Sheriff to arrest the party, or they might send more Knights, or they might send sneaky assassins or bold bounty hunters. I keep in mind that War Duke -- as impressively stat'd in Dungeon -- is mentioned as having a specialty of killing entire parties as a bounty hunter.

But I agree with Umbran, from a low level NPC point-of-view, or a bounty hunter's POV, revenge is a dish best served cold. Get the PC's when they are down, like returning from an adventure low on spells, and shoot to kill, as best the NPC's can try it.

If you're feeling nice, you might have a hot-head NPC mouth off to the PC's or threaten "you'll get yours" before the actual day of reckoning.

And if the "take down" fails, what happens next? If it's Points of Light, the PC's probably just have a completely hostile village, that won't let them into the walls (if there are walls) and will take the attitude of the Town Marshall in "Unforgiven" towards English Bob: "You know if I ever see you again, I'm just gunna start shooting, and figure it was self-defense."

If it's a more organized setting the PCs would be hunted outlaws, with wanted posters, people who refuse to sell them food because the penalty for helping outlaw is death, the works. That could actually be an interesting and unique campaign -- one where evil is "allowed" by the rules, but isn't the easy path at all!

 

[haakon1]

I absolutely abhor evil PCs and their presence in my games, so I feel like I'm maybe overreacting. I just feel like evil PCs force me as a DM to do things that make the game not fun and go down paths that I have moral reservations against.

Metagame comment:

Why are you gaming with folks who play in a way you find abhorrent?

As DM, if I had a problem where the party is running rampant evil (which also annoys me), I'd say: "Play normal D&D, either Tolkien heroic D&D or greedy-neutral-but-basically-decent-flawed-hero D&D, or else find another DM. I'm just not interested in the game you're trying to play."

I feel as DM, you need to be in charge of the table, and keep it civilized and comfortable for everyone there. If someone is "forcing me to do things that make the game not fun and down paths that I have moral reservations against", it's you're game, and you can put your foot down and end it.

If the same thing happens as a player, you can also state your case and leave if the objectionable player behavior -- that is, being a jerk by offending a fellow player -- continues.

I bet some of the other players are repulsed by the behavior of the swordmage's player too. They are just too chicken to speak up, as is often the case with people in awe of a bully.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

As others have said, why on Earth did you let them play Evil characters in the first place? As for what the Paladin thought, no he didn't. YOU did. At this point your best bet is to fess up that you hate the party, drop the campaign, and start a new one with only Good/Neutral characters. IMO.

 

[Aeolius]

During the battle, LG group lost 2 members of their party, including the paladin's newly recruited 16 yo cohort. Another member of the group, the only female, was seriously injured and the paladin lost an eye. Also during the battle, the paladin saw the risen corpse of one of the PCs and completely lost it. He believed the PCs, more specifically the swordsage, were responsible. Battered, teetering on the brink of death and shocked and despaired at the loss of his comrades, he marched back to town to confront the swordsage.

And now the PC Group and LG group will have to join forces, to defeat a band of demonically-infused undead monstrosities comprised of fallen comrades from both of their parties....

 

[prosfilaes]

At the inn, the paladin stormed in, threw the swordsage on a table and demanded to know what he had done. No attack rolls were called for or anything like that, this was simply an RP encounter.

No attack rolls were called for for physically assaulting a PC? Did the players agree? If it were my character, I'd feel a little annoyed that my character was getting physically manhandled against his will, and not getting any sort of dispute resolution rules involved.

The paladin was already at -1 hps so it didn't take much.

? Again, house rule that let him keep standing at that point, or arbitrary GM fiat?

I absolutely abhor evil PCs and their presence in my games, so I feel like I'm maybe overreacting.

Then why are you doing this? It seems like a bad idea to DM for a bunch of PCs you absolutely abhor.

 

[saskganesh]

Clear cut witnesses and everything about murder of a paladin over tacos downtown. In a good town, sounds like arrest, charges, imprisonment and a fair trial, where they will be found .... guilty.

The sentence will be interesting. Again as it's a good town, maybe not execution, maybe a serious and near impossible to fulfill geas as a form of rehab and penitence and bolstering the social contract.

Anyhow, even though you do not like evil PC's ( again, I am with others and I don't know why you are running this game etc.), "evil" has consequences and maybe it's time your players learned that.

Book 'em.

 

[jefgorbach]

you dont reveal much regarding the town and its inhabitants.

Heironeous is but one god among many ... whose are the local favorite(s)??
obviously(?) the LG group is a squad of Heironeous's soldiers, but how do they relate to the community and its townsfolk? Do they even know the victim was a paladin?

Regardless, from the other patrons viewpoint, the Paladin barraged into the establishment to publicly slander and challenge the swordsage; who reacted accordingly and thus should/would be excused for allowable and honorable self-defense.

Esp as it sounds like the LG group is just another small adventuring band among many in the area lacking any true local political weight - in which case the event may just be hand-waved as a typical weekend brawl not worth the Watch's time, esp if its a true frontier town ... in which case it wouldn't surprise me if the inn keep/patrons bought the Swordsage a celebratory round of drinks for riding them of the pain-in-the-arse.

Since the evil group has been using the town for a prolonged period, its likely they've made some friends/allies. Whichever group has the more influential support base are likely seen as the "good guys" regardless of actual alignment.

 

[SuperJebba]

Thanks for all the responses, guys!

I feel as if I need to explain myself and running a group of evil PCs despite my reservations against it. There's such strong feelings about it!

1. As a DM, I hate ruling that certain books or play styles can't be played. I feel like I'm pigeonholing the group into playing a game that won't be fun for them. I never know where to draw the line with what's allowed because I personally would be fine playing a game that only allowed the three core books and the PHBII, and I know that most people would not enjoy that.
2. I also feel like it is simply my job as the DM to facilitate a good time for the party, and I don't feel like it will be fun for them if I don't let them play what they want.
3. I have played with this group ever since I've played, or rather DMed, DnD and I've known some of the guys for 20 years (ironically, those are the ones I'm most annoyed with). I don't have anyone else to play with, so I figure that DnD that maybe isn't as fun for me is better than no DnD at all.

Thanks for the ideas on how to handle the situation. The more I thought about it today, I guess the town is really more neutral-aligned and relatively impartial to what the numerous adventuring groups that come and go do so long as the locals don't get hurt. I feel like I can just cut them off from some basic services and force them to live in the wilderness and find somewhere else to trade their goods. I'm within my rights to have the town react this way, ya? It doesn't make me a jerk?