Murder or Adventuring?

[Jabborwacky]

In this case, it sounds like they do not have sufficient evidence to say who killed the bride-to-be. Moreover, the culprit is someone who does not want the family rivalry to end. Since there was nothing to lose from ending the rivalry (as far as I can tell), there is a possibility of outside interference. They may be more comfortable if they are given time to investigate the possible attackers first. Maybe they can convince the family head not to act too hastily and let them investigate a bit first.

As for the difference, it is based on lore. D&D orcs are the children of Gruumsh and are filled with their dark god's rage. Goblins are strongly associated with Maglubiet (I think I spelled that right)-- yet another evil deity. Gnolls are very likely the sentient progeny of anthropomorphized hyenas made by Yeenoghu. So the answer to your question is that the monsterous races share the evil aspects of the dark gods that created them. They don't have to be evil in your world: It's just the default assumption in D&D since Greyhawk.

If humans were entirely evil creatures made by a dark deity, they'd probably get treated the exact same way as orcs, goblins, and gnolls.

 

[Dog Moon]

That is what I am asking. Why is it a problem that the PC's dont want to go auto-kill the other family?

Actually, it wasn't a problem. [And in this adventure I'm writing I'm making sure to have clear details of what happens if the PCs DON'T do what is expected/asked of them]. I even specifically told them that if they didn't go the family would find someone else. Though the family DID lie and say they had enough proof, though the players doubted this. It ended up being "Do we basically follow the leader of the town or what we feel is morally right?" They ended up following the leader [though they did make note that they were going to attempt to find proof, which I had absolutely no problems with as a DM, though through the NPC told them they could do whatever as long as the family ended up dead] which ironically led them right to doing what is morally right. But I wonder if there was a way I could have presented the situation better.

And the adventure actually turned out well because they found proof in the other location of the other family that they were NOT involved and though they fought one of the family members there they found that the rival family had been infiltrated as well, meaning someone WAS targeting both of the families. So in the end everything worked out. But it was interesting to me that even after finding the proof they debated on whether to stay to finish off the rest of the family or not, though they quickly decided not to.

I have an encounter detailed later on after the PCs go defeat a tribe of Goblins, which they likely will have no problems doing, where the on again off again mate of the Goblin King is going to hunt after the PCs for what they've done and we'll see what they do there. Will they feel guilty for killing the Goblin King, will they try to defend their position "He was evil!" or how will they act fighting the hurt loved one who isn't evil, but is simply angry at the PCs?

 

[Dog Moon]

And I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who responded. You've helped me get some perspective on the situation. Honestly, when writing the situation, it never occurred to me that the PCs might object. I think the biggest thing is A) They aren't inherently evil and B) the Rivalry hasn't been as in the face of the players as it likely would the PCs, so even though they're in the middle of it, they view it more from the outside.

 

[Herobizkit]

I've been watching a lot of 'Suits' lately (lawyer show on USA Network/Bravo in Canada?) and watching all the backstabbing gave me an idea.

What if the PC's mayor is in cahoots with the Goblin King and actually responsible for hiring the goblins? He could take a "I told you I wanted that other family to pay!" stance and starts his own vendetta against the PCs?

 

[delericho]

I've been watching a lot of 'Suits' lately (lawyer show on USA Network/Bravo in Canada?) and watching all the backstabbing gave me an idea.

What if the PC's mayor is in cahoots with the Goblin King and actually responsible for hiring the goblins? He could take a "I told you I wanted that other family to pay!" stance and starts his own vendetta against the PCs?

See also: The Princess Bride.

 

[Dog Moon]

I've been watching a lot of 'Suits' lately (lawyer show on USA Network/Bravo in Canada?) and watching all the backstabbing gave me an idea.

What if the PC's mayor is in cahoots with the Goblin King and actually responsible for hiring the goblins? He could take a "I told you I wanted that other family to pay!" stance and starts his own vendetta against the PCs?

Well, in this case I actually don't want either mayor involved with this attempt since at the beginning of the second adventure the two towns are magically going to be combined into one town. So ( ) will basically become O, which means that will create a lot of interesting friction. The two different mayors WILL eventually become enemies of the PCs (because of secrets that will eventually be revealed later on in the campaign), but not quite yet. Eventually the mayor that they have been working with will use the PCs and then realize at a certain point that they've become too powerful and he needs to do something about them but at the same time he still needs their assistance.

But that is a good point. I need to add in something that frustrates the PCs, makes them angry or something, and then in the end to realize that their mayor was behind that action. Oh, the betrayal, in so many ways. But it should be something personal. Something that will give the PCs great satisfaction in defeating him.