Immoral player characters in RPGs

[MGibster]

Only if you accept the premise that the person's you've captured won't hesitate to murder to escape.

Well, let's think about this for a moment. If you captured someone you believe broke into your ship with the intent to steal or otherwise do something nefarious and were going through the trouble of putting them on trial wouldn't you make sure they didn't have any weapons? If anyone broke into my home while carrying a weapon I would work from the assumption that they were willing to use it on me.

 

[Umbran]

Some RPGers seem to think it is the referee's job to stop or police this sort of action declaration. Are they correct?

What was the table agreement with respect to tone of the game, and PCs intentionally harming other PCs?

If there's a table agreement that would preclude such, then yes, it is the referee's job to enforce that agreement.

If there wasn't an agreement - why the heck wasn't there a table agreement on this? Lacking one, it would probably have been appropriate to pause the action and create the agreement.

 

[Umbran]

Well, let's think about this for a moment. If you captured someone you believe broke into your ship with the intent to steal or otherwise do something nefarious and were going through the trouble of putting them on trial wouldn't you make sure they didn't have any weapons?

This is secondary from the table consent issue, but yeah. The captors didn't bother to search captives for weapons?

Grenades are, primarily, anti-personnel weapons. If the PCs are carrying grenades, then you should expect grenade action, and the rather gruesome and unheroic results.

 

[Tonguez]

it seems that the Player played their character and thats is what they are suppose to do, its now the GMs job to impose in game consequences since that character is clearly a pirate and the Taxiwanians have reason to suspect that the explosion that destroyed their ship, killed their people and another PC wasnt an accident

 

[MGibster]

it seems that the Player played their character and thats is what they are suppose to do, its noe the GMs job to impose in game consequences since that character is clearly a pirate and the Taxiwanians have reason to suspect that the explosion that destroyed their ship, killed their people and another PC wasnt an accident

I'm a natural consequences type of GM myself. i.e. I allow the actions of the PCs to have a consequence on the direction of the campaign for good or bad. In a Traveller game, not that I've ever run one before, I think I could continue the campaign just fine. At some point, someone is going to investigate the explosion of the Taxiwanian ship. They're going to figure out that the explosion wasn't an accident, will likely figure out that there was a smaller explosion on the bridge prior to the larger detonation, and may even be able to piece together any communication they had with the PCs putting them at the top of the list of suspects.

So that's what I'd do. At some point in the future I'd have the Taxiwanians attempting to detain the PCs to question them about their involvement with the doomed crew. I might even ask them what a member of their crew was doing aboard the ship.

 

[Umbran]

it seems that the Player played their character and thats is what they are suppose to do

The player is supposed to play a game with other people. So, "I was just playing my character," is not an acceptable excuse for taking the game to a place others really don't want to go.

 

[MGibster]

The player is supposed to play a game with other people. So, "I was just playing my character," is not an acceptable excuse for taking the game to a place others really don't want to go.

This is of paramount importance and it bears repeating. It's okay to have a character that sometimes makes things a bit more complicated for everyone. It's not okay for someone to play a character in such a manner that it makes the game less fun for other players or the GM. Such things will inevitably happen from time-to-time, but it's something that should be avoided when possible.

 

[TwoSix]

This is of paramount importance and it bears repeating. It's okay to have a character that sometimes makes things a bit more complicated for everyone. It's not okay for someone to play a character in such a manner that it makes the game less fun for other players or the GM. Such things will inevitably happen from time-to-time, but it's something that should be avoided when possible.

To be fair, we have no indication that any of the players have an issue with how things played out, only that some of the characters do.

 

[Umbran]

To be fair, we have no indication that any of the players have an issue with how things played out, only that some of the characters do.

From the OP:
"...Vincenzo's player, in particular, was pretty outraged ..."

Emphasis mine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

From the OP:
"...Vincenzo's player, in particular, was pretty outraged ..."

Emphasis mine.

I took that to be outraged at the character but not at the player.

I think that expectations of play are absolutely of high importance here, and if the players are not happy with this kind of thing then some discussion is in order. But I don’t get that impression here. I’m sure pemerton can confirm, though.