Putting the PCs on trial for being heroic

[changoo]

This is a semi-complicated thing, and before I get into this, I want you all to read this article from Scott Kurtz. It's an account from a recent D&D game session. Now, the ultimate goal of the article, one I laud, is the idea of every now and then having a session that's combat or dice-rolling free - one that's all role play.

However, reading the article, the way that they got this in their campaign is, after the PC's returned to town after doing what was basically a SAR mission into the Underdark to save some kidnapped townspeople... they were put on trial by the town for doing just that, because they thought they were going to stir up the Underdark further.

Now, my GMing experience is minimal, though I'd like to GM further. That said, in reading this post, I can't help but feel that as a player, in that situation, I'd be disinclined to basically participate in future plot threads - that I wouldn't want to save the townsfolk from harassment from goblins and so forth, because it's more trouble than its worth. It kind of reminds me of what bugged me about the New Jedi Order novels, or for that matter, Gremlins and some other horror movies - I don't want these people to survive:

• The New Republic leadership is trying our heroes for treason for trying to save them from the Vong, why should they try to stop the Vong?
• Almost every major citizen in town, from the owner of the bank to the local department store is either a vile harpy or a smug jerk, why would I want them not to get killed by the Gremlins.
• This load of teenagers going out to Crystal Lake are uniformly s. Why precisely should I hope that Jason doesn't kill them all, and have a jump scare when Jason gets them?

Finally, in the case of a RPG campaign, and here's the big question, when the heroes defeat the evil menace and save the day, and all they get in response is anger, hatred, hostility and quite possibly jail time, particularly when or if they did the right thing and not in the Ghostbusters "We caught the ghost but trashed the hotel" sense but in the sense that they did everything or almost everything right that they could have done (skill checks and dice rolls aside) - should the players like they're being picked on, and is there a good way to handle this so that this doesn't kill the campaign dead?

 

[wedgeski]

This is just a buy-in issue. If the players buy-in to what the DM is trying to achieve, a night where they're defending themselves in an unjust trial prosecuted by do-gooders looking for a conviction in ignorance of the bigger picture... then it will all work.

If the players aren't of that type, then it won't. They'll whine and moan and claim their characters wouldn't want to help a town that didn't appreciate it, when it's possible or likely that it is in fact they, the players, who don't want to help such a place, whereas their heroic PC's would.

Doing the right thing under adversity, and receiving no praise, recognition, or accolade for it, is often the literary standard of true heroism.

The media examples you cite annoy me too... well, except for the Gremlins one, where Billy and his girlfriend are nice people trying to do the right thing under adversity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It depends what type of game you are running. And probably takes skill to pull this one off. Because it could be run as an excellent campaign where the new goal is to defeat the Enemy Within - the official town council is corrupt and only a few of the people dare whisper words of encouragement. Or partially trumped up charges (and what do you bet the tribunal was paid from the fines they imposed?) pressed by someone who didn't like the PCs being a new force in town/was trying to deflect attention. Or it could just be annoying. (And part of that linked trial was a Ghostbusters style "We stopped the bad guys but opened an entrance to the underdark")

 

[On Puget Sound]

The misunderstood heroes, no good deed goes unpunished is a staple of storytelling. See : Batman the Dark Knight, or the whole X-men storyline. If overdone, and with no likelihood of change or public redemption, it could crush player morale - even if the heroes have the fortitude to continue saving a world that spurns them, the players may not.

 

[TarionzCousin]

One suggestion: have an NPC they trust meet with them in jail after they have been arrested but before the trial. Said NPC -- let's call him Obi-Wan -- tells the PC's to wait (don't try to break out), and let the trial run. He and his people need to find out who is pulling the strings, and the trial should bring them out--or give Obi-Wan enough time to conduct his own investigation.

 

[Merkuri]

Like On Puget Sound said, this is a staple for storytelling. The heroes do what they know is right and get punished for it, forcing them to run from the law or try to prove their innocence.

I would love to play in a story like that. If it goes on over several sessions or an entire campaign then it's an excuse for otherwise heroic, honest characters to be sneaky, lie, and do somewhat non-heroic (but exciting) things.

As far as why a character would be willing to put up with that, you're generally dealing with very heroic and self-sacrificing characters in plots like this. These people put the safety of others above the well being of themselves. They see evil in the world and they know it needs to be stopped at all cost, even if that cost is their own freedom or integrity.

 

[Dausuul]

I would feel much the same way as you. The only way I can see putting the PCs on trial like that would be if it were the work of a corrupt town official trying to discredit them, in which case it would soon become clear that they have the sympathy of the rest of the townsfolk.

Of course, I probably wouldn't do it even then, unless I'd done a lot of work to build up the PCs' attachment to the town. Let's face it, the average PC (at least in my experience) is a dangerous outlaw type accustomed to solving all problems at the point of a sword. Furthermore, if they've been making expeditions into the Underdark and coming out alive, they're really, really good at it. A small-town militia wouldn't stand a chance if the PCs decided to pick a fight, and the PCs generally know it. So the implied threat is toothless; if the PCs are facing execution or prison time, they simply bust out and go where they please. They don't get to come back to the sleepy small town, but most of them don't care.

 

[Sunseeker]

I never liked these sort of things, from either end of the table. The main problem is that they're usually done poorly, and rely on the fact that the "heroes" are a bunch of do-gooders with hearts of gold. In most modern gaming worlds, your adventurers are just as likely to be gold-hearted heroes as they are to be black-hearted mercenaries who only saved the town because they enjoyed killing X foes and taling their loot. I hate relying on the characters being good-hearted.

Not to mention, when there's no indication of this sort of thing before the game, ie: the questgiver doesn't say "oh the town won't be too happy about this" or when in the town before saving people the town is trying to discourage you from going into the Underdark, it just comes off as one of those "gotcha!" moments from the DM. Players should have a heads up that there may be consequences, even from the town from which the people were taken. They don't have to be explicit, but they should, in my book, be entitled to a little forewarning. Thus allowing them to weigh the moral consequences of saving the people, vs getting in good with the town. I mean, why would you want to save the friends/family of a town of jerks? Unless you're like Superman, who even saves his arch-nemesis, you are more than likely going to feel pretty torn when it comes to take these actions.

The 'enemy within' is always an interesting story, but again, there should be some heads-up that something bad might happen to them if they do this quest.

And, as mentioned, this is some small town, why didn't the PCs just wipe the floor with the town militia? Who presumably is weaker than them and hence is why they're scared of the Underdark. Unless there's some reason for the PCs to feel attached to the town, or for them to feel they need to face justice, even if the justice is wrong, then this situation should never have happened.

And yes, as a player, this sort of forced plot moment "you all honrably surrender your weapons and do what you're told" really makes me disinclined to further participate in the game. Because clearly the GM has no desire to play a game with people, the GM wants to do what they want and the rest be dammed.

 

[billd91]

Sounds like everyone had a great time playing so Kudos to Scott Kurtz. It sounds like it was an awesome session. I particularly liked him taking the role of judge while an assistant DM played prosecution.

I don't see a problem with this sort of scenario. It wouldn't be applicable for all mixes of players or PCs, but if the mix is right, I think it works just fine. There are plenty of people willing to play heroes who do things because they're right even if they lead to inconveniences.

 

[lin_fusan]

You need at least one out of the following three elements for this to work, and it's best if you have two, and excellent if you have three:

1) The plotty reason: if the players know that this town, for whatever reason, has to be united and saved for evil to be defeated, then there is incentive to go what they can to preserve and change the town for the better.

2) The character reason: if the players have grown attached to NPCs in the town, and know that if they abandon them to these witchhunts, they would be targeted next. Or that the NPCs are earnestly trying to help the PCs, and don't deserve the fate that their accusers deserve.

3) The themey reason: if the players are determined to do good in the world, and knowing that if they abandon the town to destruction or self-destruction, they are allowing evil to thrive.

It is obvious that all three of these things require that the players want to strive to do good, so the balancing act is to make the town worth saving. If the players don't have those goals, then expect the trial to go differently.

There is a fourth reason that isn't universal to all players: if your players enjoy this kind of courtroom drama, some who might even have skills or information-find magic, then that's the best reason to create this kind of scenario.

I'd like to believe that Scott Kurtz knows and understands his players. From his post, it sounds like they enjoyed the game. Until proven otherwise, I won't assume that it was overly railroady or a jerky thing to do.