How much backlash is too much?

[Zelda Themelin]

One of these things is not like the other. Two of these things are kind of the same.

True. But they are similar if they dm just make them happen no matter what players do. In any case most players are not looking forward to some boring trial-game. And villagers coming after you with pitchforks might be ok for low-level party (like one Pathfinder adventure might go). But high level game it's not really a threat and feels unrealistic behavior. Plus gets your villagers slaughtered or worse.

As to other things you said, I agree. However, I think such reactions should happen for relevent evil actions. Not some killing in bar that could go both ways what come to blaim. This social event relates to real bad they did, but it's not it.

I think dm and many here are getting too much on head of "poor paladin" and making him too a important story element. I think players should in this case get pretty smoothly off with killing unless they start creating more violence.

Not getting off the hook related the demonic portal though. Nor with paladin's friends when they find out.

And to OP

But really if you want to focus game instead to player's vendetta on village sure get them entangled. I just presumed you don't like evil game specially for reasons most people I know don't like them so it might not be such a great move. When you focus it on competing evil powers, good groups and various monsters that are just hungry it's not that different than regular adventuring game.

Think they just are playing that other team. You know one that in published modules is trying to resurrect ancient lich tyrant or summon their demonic master or whatsnot. But instead of stopping it, you are now people doing it. And let them have same change of winning as do good guys. Make sure they have focus and create competition for their goals. Keep them off from petty evils, like torturing lowbies. Easiest way to that is keep need for such behavior low and give them enemies of their level to contend with.

Let them have their creepy evil "pastime" hobbies like collecting corpses to animate from graves or whatever but don't focus on those things.

Stay neutral don't fall in love with good guys. They are after all, bad guys of this kinda adventure. They probably will end up dead.

It might be they just want similar adventure as with good characters, just this time looking from other side of mirror.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I would expect that the town would approve of the PCs, but it would be like a battle between Godzilla and Mechagodzilla, or Superman and Darkseid; either side could kill bystanders by the dozens by accident, so anyone merely mortal does their best not to be around when everything goes down. They're not going to get involved, and really, who could blame them?

In my follow-up post on this subject, I stated the following:

A lot of groups feel like getting the law involved is contributing. If something is above their pay grade, going to the person (or usually people) who can handle it is a contribution. It's no different from scouting, in the sense that you've spotted danger, and you're reporting it to the guy who has the muscle to deal with it.

... But to say that the government wouldn't get involved if it was flipped around? I really disagree unless the government is corrupt (which is possible). It's in the community's best interest to stop the Villain. And that most certainly wasn't the paladin.

I feel that this addresses your concern, which is valid. Even in spaghetti westerns, the town hires a lone gunman to avenge the sheriff. I don't much like the analogy here, since I think they could just petition for legitimate forces (from a church, local lord, government, legal adventurers, etc.) to get rid of their problem (the Evil PCs, who the town might see as the equivalent as bandits or murderers now).

There are ways to go against the Villain without trying to shoot him yourself. I do feel that the town would explore those options. And if the government was corrupt, they'd probably do it through illegal means. They have a lot of money coming in from the adventurers: funnel it to another adventuring group, and promise them all the loot from the Evil PCs. Good deal all around (gold + loot for adventurers, no more Evil PCs murdering paladins and opening Evil portals for the town). Repeat as necessary if this new group is also corrupt (but look for a group that isn't, obviously).

Just my thoughts. I agree they probably won't get pitchforks and torches, but I disagree that they'd do nothing most of the time. Not with the income the adventurers have reportedly been bringing in. As always, play what you like

 

[prosfilaes]

Even in spaghetti westerns, the town hires a lone gunman to avenge the sheriff. I don't much like the analogy here, since I think they could just petition for legitimate forces (from a church, local lord, government, legal adventurers, etc.) to get rid of their problem (the Evil PCs, who the town might see as the equivalent as bandits or murderers now).

Sure, if they do. It depends a lot on their perceptions of the two parties and what happened (and the perceptions more than the reality.)

There are ways to go against the Villain without trying to shoot him yourself. I do feel that the town would explore those options.

Yes. Though personally, while I don't find poison and similar suggestions unrealistic, I do find them unfun. I would drop a series of warnings that Stuff Was Going to Happen and then drop the big avenging heroes in; or alternately a series of NPCs looking for the reward on the spellsage/party's head. ("I heard about what you did to that paladin. That was cool! You know what's even more cool? The 10,000 GP bounty on your head. *Sneak attack*.)*

* (Actually, more realistically, I'd drop this game or have never started it.)

Really? What level are the PCs and the Paladins? That sounds like Epic Tier, but previously it sounded more like Heroic Tier shenanigans.

I don't do 4e, so I don't think that way. But my 5th level mage can take out a crowd of low-level NPCs with Fireball, and pretty much ignore any level-1 warrior attack. At 10th level, 3e characters are truly dangerous opponents to 1st level Commoners and Warriors. It changes a lot on the particular game rules and how the DM handles NPC levels, but in 3e, unless a lot of people are walking around with a lot of levels, mid-level PCs should be avoided.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

@ TarionzCousin -

Grumpy 2 by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

The Auld Grump

 

[Janx]

Back to the OP, just how evil were the PCs before the Paladin incident?

Were they "we dress up in black but haven't actually done some serious evil yet"

Like with the portal thing, did they actually open it, do it on purpose? Or was it an accident that they then were unable to close it?

Because the difference is whether you are setting them up to get in trouble, or if they are instigating trouble in an ever escalating fashion.

Like when you brought in the team of Good Guys. You could have just brought in another apolitical NPC party, but you chose to bring in paragons of virtue who were going to collide with anybody who's unkosher.

I differentiate running a generic PC party than now and then does some light crime like busting some heads, bullying or extortion from all out Evil and working on becomin the new Dark Lord.

 

[S'mon]

S
I don't do 4e, so I don't think that way. But my 5th level mage can take out a crowd of low-level NPCs with Fireball, and pretty much ignore any level-1 warrior attack. At 10th level, 3e characters are truly dangerous opponents to 1st level Commoners and Warriors. It changes a lot on the particular game rules and how the DM handles NPC levels, but in 3e, unless a lot of people are walking around with a lot of levels, mid-level PCs should be avoided.

Yes, 3e 5th level is pretty equivalent to 4e Epic.

 

[haakon1]

Though personally, while I don't find poison and similar suggestions unrealistic, I do find them unfun.

Oh, come on. This is your one chance to put on the DM pointy horned helmet of DMvP gaming. Imagine the fun!

DM: "So you are in the tavern. Everyone seems in awe of you and is hanging back. Except the crusty old barkeeper, who let's you drink free, and the serving wench, who is sitting on your knee by the second pint, telling you how manly and handsome you were to stand up to the goodytwoshoes paladin. She asks, 'Would like another pint, studly?'"

Swordmage player answers, "Umm, sure."

DM: "Roll a Fortitude save."

Swordmage player answers, "What, am I getting drunk? Umm, modified that's an 11."

DM: "At first you think you ARE drunk, but as the room starts to spin, you realize something just isn't right. You struggle to your feet, and the serving wench takes a 5 foot step away from you, as you take (roll-roll) 9 pts of Constitution damage. That brings you to Con 3, I believe. So you lose, let's see, -5 hp per level. You should have a minute to react before the secondary damage comes around. That's 10 rounds. What do you do?"

Surely, that's fun, from a certain point of view.

I would drop a series of warnings that Stuff Was Going to Happen and then drop the big avenging heroes in; or alternately a series of NPCs looking for the reward on the spellsage/party's head. ("I heard about what you did to that paladin. That was cool! You know what's even more cool? The 10,000 GP bounty on your head. *Sneak attack*.)*

That's fun too, but more of "all in a days work" for PC's.

Actually, more realistically, I'd drop this game or have never started it.

Well, yes.

But my 5th level mage can take out a crowd of low-level NPCs with Fireball, and pretty much ignore any level-1 warrior attack.

What's your mage's Con? How would he do against Dark Reaver powder ingested poison, DC18 Fort save with 2d6 Con initial, 1d6 Con + 1d Str secondary? I'm guessing dead or having a very bad day in most cases.

This is why poison is the equalizer -- level is irrelevant (other than increasing the saves), it's all about ability scores.

 

[Anselyn]

Like with the portal thing, did they actually open it, do it on purpose? Or was it an accident that they then were unable to close it?

Because the difference is whether you are setting them up to get in trouble, or if they are instigating trouble in an ever escalating fashion.

Exactly! I've just found this thread but this was my thought from post 1.

The party didn't "accidentally" open a gate. The DM actively decided that this happened as a result of their actions. A gate that is opened can close again and at any arbitrary time and the party would know no different. I doubt it came with a warrantee saying: Once opened guaranteed good for 1001 years.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sure, if they do. It depends a lot on their perceptions of the two parties and what happened (and the perceptions more than the reality.)

Oh definitely. I totally agree. From my impression of it, the paladin and his companions were obviously Heroes to the town, and I think callously murdering one of them would paint the party in a bad light. But if the town perceives the two parties differently (for any number of reasons, including my impression being mistaken), then it will definitely affect the attitude of actions of the townspeople.

Yes. Though personally, while I don't find poison and similar suggestions unrealistic, I do find them unfun. I would drop a series of warnings that Stuff Was Going to Happen and then drop the big avenging heroes in; or alternately a series of NPCs looking for the reward on the spellsage/party's head. ("I heard about what you did to that paladin. That was cool! You know what's even more cool? The 10,000 GP bounty on your head. *Sneak attack*.)*

* (Actually, more realistically, I'd drop this game or have never started it.)

I have a spoken rule with my group: any amount of rat bastard you want to be, you can be, but my NPCs won't hold back from it if you don't. If the party wants to assassinate people while they sleep, use deadly poisons, give their word and backstab people for purely entertainment value, they can. NPCs won't hesitate to, either, though.

It is unfun to lose a character to "you're all asleep then, except for your magical alarm? Okay, Austin, roll a Fort save. 16? You're dead." Nobody wants to lose a character like that, but I also think it breaks suspension of disbelief too much if the PCs use it liberally, and nobody ever thinks to do it back to them. Now, if the world doesn't really use poisons, highly values giving their word, doesn't approve of assassination even socially (much less by law), I can conserve a lot of suspension of disbelief when both the party and NPCs don't use it. If, however, it is apparently going to be a factor in the campaign, then I won't stop the NPCs from utilizing that resource as well (though NPCs that do will probably be few and far between).

At any rate, I probably wouldn't play in a campaign like it, and I'd warn the party about problems they'd likely face before they began play. If they heard me say, "here's the likely consequences of the actions you guys are talking about taking" during character creation, then change nothing, I won't feel bad when they end up facing those consequences. And, generally speaking, they'll say something like, "well, we saw that coming, so oh well" and move on. They're good in that respect (they don't take deaths personally, but also aren't jaded and do look to connect with characters).

Anyways, communication is a key lesson here. It comes down to both sides talking about their expectations, and their wants. If the players say they want to play an Evil party, but the DM won't have fun, it's best if the DM lets them know that. The social contract of the group should often be talked about, not just assumed. Not that this part is directed at you, prosfilaes. Just throwing in my two cents. As always, play what you like

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

I'm sure plenty of towns would just get back to business as usual after "one blasted adventurer killed another one," and in the world of Dungeons & Dragons it's common sense that if you lay hands on someone who's carrying a sword you better be prepared for them to use it against you.