D&D 5E No good deed goes unpunished

[Coroc]

Go for the "cannot handle the sudden riches" Option.

Means: they live above their standard, order loads of expensive goods they cannot pay. So they borrow Money, because everyone thinks he is the only one who buys something expensive, and there is that 1200g with which the debt will be covered but the Gold is used up.

Maybe the moneylenders are not of the nice Kind and demand that People go into slavery for a time to pay up, or they confiscate all the Food the peasants produce so they suffer hunger etc.

This plot is a bit tricky to put up and sound believable so you have to think things through upfront.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I agree with many of the others. You don't want to discourage your players from doing good deeds. There are already a lot of players who wouldn't have even thought about giving the money to the town.
Unless you had already hinted that the elder was greedy or shady and they ignored the hint.

 

[snickersnax]

I like the idea of the town using the money wisely to rebuild the town, help those who suffered loss, improve the defenses and public works. But the town is once again besieged by monsters and needs the parties help when they return. The party has the opportunity to help them out again. But there is a Criminal Mastermind (CM) behind both the previous hill giants and this new threat who it trying to destroy the village for revenge or perhaps the village has a greater treasure that they are unaware of the CM wants.

If the party fails to discover the CM, the village suffers more future attacks. The villagers become convinced that their town is cursed, and seek help from the adventurers yet again. At this point the villagers will be near their breaking point and ready to abandon their town.

Hopefully the party can discover the CM (by interrogating the monsters who are attacking the town, perhaps they notice that the new monsters have more money than what could have been taken from the town, maybe they have the magical resources to uncover the plot).

Make sure the villagers are always grateful and have them start naming buildings and public works after the party members. That will assure that the party stays engaged and doesn't develop compassion fatigue.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would determine the personality traits, flaws, and bonds for the village elder who has the money. If they are a good-hearted soul, the money would be used to improve the village (pay for materials/labor to be brought in). If he's a greedy SOB, then he improves his own life, with a nice house and expensive goods, bringing envy to the remaining villagers, causing him to hire guards and possibly turning into a tyrant. Dividing the money evenly is kinda pointless, as it just devalues the currency locally, making no ones lives better, which is also a humorous result (inn stay when the party goes by next is way more expensive). In any case, it really only matters if the PCs find out about it, either by returning or the events being so notable to be heard about far away (where the PCs are).

 

[Ganymede81]

Twisting the story in this manner just shows the players that they were stupid to of given the villagers the money. So a good act of altruism on their behalf becomes a mistake.

I disagree. I feel this shows that the path of the hero is fraught with peril, and this is just an example of that peril. Fundamentally, this is no different than the threat of being eaten by a pack of hill giants; heroes risk disaster with all their generous acts, whether it is funding a town or slaying monsters.

That's the curse of being good, generous, and kind; there are always evil beings that will attempt to take advantage of it.

 

[Celebrim]

There is common joke or metaphor that "the DM is God". That is to say, the DM is the creator of the campaign world, is omnipotent, and is relatively omniscient, and in so far as it relates to the game his word is law.

But the idea that "no good deed should go unpunished" is not the idea of "the DM is God", but that the DM is the devil. I find way too many GMs think their role in the game is to punish the players, and in particular to punish the players if they act in any way that is not completely selfless and ruthless. Vicious murder is rewarded, but any charitable or merciful act is to be punished. The world these DMs create is one were every NPC is irrationally vindictive, ruthless, greedy, and immoral - even when such things goes against their own interest. No mook left alive does not suicidally try to avenge himself on merciful PCs. No act of compassion is ever met with compassionate responses. No one misses a chance to spit in the PCs eyes, even if it means falling on the PCs blades. Enemies attack with suicidal frenzy, and left alive plot revenge with diabolical single purpose. Every merchant is a cheat. Every noble is a ruthless SOB. No one gives or offers or takes quarter. There is no practical difference between humans and orcs.

I often wonder where this mentality comes from. Is the goal to force everyone to be murder hoboes?

As a second issue, to just show how absurd the thought is in this case, 1200 g.p. is in most campaign worlds only equivalent in buying power to $60,000. That is to say, most campaign worlds price goods in terms of gold pieces (certainly if you use Player's Handbook prices, you do), and labors earn about a gold piece per day. It certainly offers a bit of succor and relief to the hard pressed villagers, but it's only equivalent to worth of a well to do tradesman or the income of a hard working farm family. Surely if 1200 g.p. worth of stuff was going to inspire murder amongst a close knit group of closely related villagers (everyone is probably everyone else's 4th cousin), that would have happened long before the PC's threw 1200 g.p. in the pot. Why weren't these neighbors murdering each other over their flocks of cattle or sheep, or a team of horses and a good wagon?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I disagree. I feel this shows that the path of the hero is fraught with peril, and this is just an example of that peril. Fundamentally, this is no different than the threat of being eaten by a pack of hill giants; heroes risk disaster with all their generous acts, whether it is funding a town or slaying monsters.

That's the curse of being good, generous, and kind; there are always evil beings that will attempt to take advantage of it.

I did suggest that evil beings, like bandits or monsters, be the ones to instigate trouble. But placing a pessimistic and crass perspective on the average commoner in the game is not the first place I would go.

Yeah, you can do it, and I have, and there's certainly a trope of best intentions gone bad out there. But lots of DMs punish their players' choices rather than laud them. As a player I really do not like it when a DM gets a gleam in their eye and tells us how we screwed up because ... reasons ... muhahahaha!

However the concept of the lots-of-gold-disrupts-the-community can be a good one. Just make sure your players stay cool with it, don't get discouraged and can garner a satisfactory conclusion.

 

[Blue]

Just a comment. I used to run with a DM where one of his less endearing traits was "The Law of Unintended (but Always Bad) Consequences". Anything you did had consequences that would backfire.

I'm nto saying don't run with the chaos idea - it's great. I am say that don't do that all the time otherwise you'll train them out of being nice, and even in cases like this, show something like a new orphanage run by two women who's husbands were killed by the giants or a food bank or something - that it has good consequences as well. Or maybe even the local lord would like to get his hands on *all* of it next time so he's invested in a regular town watch because of the village's exposed position.

 

[Ganymede81]

I did suggest that evil beings, like bandits or monsters, be the ones to instigate trouble. But placing a pessimistic and crass perspective on the average commoner in the game is not the first place I would go.

Well yeah.

It is like the scenario of knocking out a foe and allowing him to run away. There is a big difference between dealing with the possibility that you'll fight him again (or never seeing him again / making an ally) and the certainty that every fleeing foe will return to stab you in your sleep.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'm going with the "Yes, but..."

Yes, introduce some chaos and story hooks for the next time the PCs roll through.

But, if you want your heroes to continue to pull altruistic acts, there must be something distinctly positive. Lots of big and little things: the new windmill, the farmer's daughter when off to wizarding academy, some successful merchants, a building named after a PC.

The twist is that now the windmill's been burned down, or someone stole the remaining gold, or the son who didn-t get the recompense he thought he deserved has since turned to necromancy.

That way, it's mostly good and rewarding, but introducing a hook with something the PCs (now) value!