Real world good Vs Story good???

[Krensky]

Um... Based on your description, your players are misrepresenting Buffy, Angel, and Harry Callahan.

The simple solution to make them realize they were cruel, heartless pricks, is to have the world treat them as such.

They walk into the bar for dinner, no one serves them. Officious scum congratulate them. Information sources refuse to deal with them. People throw their judicial murder of an innocent back in their face. Have her friends pass word around the afterlife so no spirit will deal with them. Have one of her friends turn out to be powerful and vindictive, leading to pranks or violence against them.

 

[Hussar]

See, this is why players are entirely pragmatic. You have DM's like Krensky who, if they do something the DM doesn't approve of, uses their position as DM to spank the players.

So, it comes down to guessing which action the DM wants me to do, and doing that.

Choo Choo! All aboard.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Does it matter that the offender is female? I got the impression that there should be more sympathy for a "young girl." Why should that be the case? Also, being young doesn't really factor in given that she is 18/an adult.

I'm not seeing what is evil about turning a criminal over to the authorities. But it's not necessarily good, either. Is this "White Council" organization evil, or what? If it's pretty much neutral I don't really see the players as being cruel or heartless. The best solution would be to have different NPCs all react differently to the situation. Some NPCs will react favorably, neutrally, or negatively. "Good job putting those necromancers away for good. Better off without em'" "You did what? Interesting, I guess." "I can't believe you let a kid be executed, doesn't everyone deserve a second chance?"

Point is, the world reacts, but not according to the GM's personal ethical theory, unless you want the above situation happening described by Hussar.

 

[Krensky]

See, this is why players are entirely pragmatic. You have DM's like Krensky who, if they do something the DM doesn't approve of, uses their position as DM to spank the players.

So, it comes down to guessing which action the DM wants me to do, and doing that.

Choo Choo! All aboard.

Yeah.

That's exactly what I said.

Never having played at my table your implications that I'm a bad or control freak GM is nothing more then a petty ad homin.

The players were presented with a moral choice. They chose the letter of the law over justice and then tried to rationalize it. As I said the world should react appropriately. If you act like a ruthless jerk, the world will treat you like a ruthless jerk.

 

[The Shaman]

Its probably a matter of how you presented the character to your players, though without knowing the specifics of how you described the character, what the necromancers were doing specifically, and so on, I can't say for certain. Fine details of how you present a character or situation can have a pretty big effect on how the players perceive things. If you didn't foreshadow that one of the necromancers was someone innocent who was roped into things, then it isn't really that surprising that the players didn't become sympathetic to the character.

That was my take-away as well: if the character isn't presented as sympathetic, don't expect sympathy. (And no, making the character a pretty girl isn't enough.)

My other question is, how well do the players know what's expected of their characters in this setting? It sounds like you know what defines morals and ethics in the game-'verse, but do they?

One word of advice: speaking as someone who likes settings which emulate literary tropes, don't expect your players to re-create a novel around the table.

 

[fuzzlewump]

@Krensky

You're making a leap of judgment that causes Hussar to say the players would just find out what makes you happy and go with that. I agree in a general sense, but I'm not going to tell you how your games are. But there may be a problem with following your maxim as a general rule, as I will describe below.

The players were presented with a moral choice. They chose the letter of the law over justice and then tried to rationalize it. As I said the world should react appropriately. If you act like a ruthless jerk, the world will treat you like a ruthless jerk.

You've made two leaps of judgement.

Leap 1: that they chose the letter of the law over justice. They, from what I can tell, thought that those two were the same thing. Let's say the other triple-double-dog evil necromancers made the same claims as the young girl, as they would have if they value their lives. Pleading insanity, saying they had no choice, claiming the big bad evil spirit told them to, whatever. If the good guys don't give everyone they meet a chance to redeem themselves, does that make them evil? Also, would it not be worse to be discriminatory to the other necromancers just because the one in question is female and because she is 18? I don't care to give an opinion one way or the other, but the point is, justice is not as clear as you may think it is. The players, obviously, agree.

Leap 2-3: That their actions mean that they are ruthless, and that they are jerks. Here's how the NPC's should really react to the players: as if they have sent 5 necromancers, with at least one young female, to be executed for their involvement in necromantic practices. Or whatever the truth is; the facts on the matter. Every NPC should have a different reaction to the truth. Every GM making the blanket statement that the players are unjust, ruthless, and jerks to this ambiguous moral situation is going to cause the sentiment that Hussar describes.

 

[Krensky]

@Krensky

You're making a leap of judgment that causes Hussar to say the players would just find out what makes you happy and go with that. I agree in a general sense, but I'm not going to tell you how your games are. But there may be a problem with following your maxim as a general rule, as I will describe below.

You're making a a larger one. That I run anything resembling the sort of railroad that Hussar implied, that my games consist of pixel bashing and mother may I shenanigans, and that if my players deviate from my desires I abuse them until they do what I want.

If that was the case I'd have no players.

You've made two leaps of judgement.

Leap 1: that they chose the letter of the law over justice. They, from what I can tell, thought that those two were the same thing. Let's say the other triple-double-dog evil necromancers made the same claims as the young girl, as they would have if they value their lives. Pleading insanity, saying they had no choice, claiming the big bad evil spirit told them to, whatever. If the good guys don't give everyone they meet a chance to redeem themselves, does that make them evil? Also, would it not be worse to be discriminatory to the other necromancers just because the one in question is female and because she is 18? I don't care to give an opinion one way or the other, but the point is, justice is not as clear as you may think it is. The players, obviously, agree.

This is starting to veer towards politics, but as presented: They turned her over for summary execution. They are the one saying justice is black and white. "Necromancer must die."

Leap 2-3: That their actions mean that they are ruthless, and that they are jerks. Here's how the NPC's should really react to the players: as if they have sent 5 necromancers, with at least one young female, to be executed for their involvement in necromantic practices. Or whatever the truth is; the facts on the matter. Every NPC should have a different reaction to the truth. Every GM making the blanket statement that the players are unjust, ruthless, and jerks to this ambiguous moral situation is going to cause the sentiment that Hussar describes.

I call them as I see them. They ignored the ambiguity. They reduced it to a black and white consideration.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, as TheShaman and SkyOdin point out, is that we have no idea if black and white is how things are presented to the players. If the DM is expecting "moral choice" and the players are thinking, "Well, the DM gave us the orders, we belong to this group that says X is what we're supposed to do" why should they be punished for doing what the DM told them to do?

That's why I say you're railroading in this case. You've decided what outcome you want the players to follow and punish them if they don't follow that outcome. Isn't that pretty much a textbook definition of rail roading?

Or, to put it another way, how is your way any less black and white? You have decided that under no circumstances should they have turned over the girl. That their actions are wrong, full stop, and they should be punished for taking them.

If you want to run moral ambiguities in a game, it needs to be very strongly framed and the players have to know in no uncertain terms, that whatever choice they make will be the "right" one, but that either choice will carry consequences that are equally good or bad.

If you set it up that Choice A gets you smacked like a pinata, and Choice B rewards you with flowers and candy, then the players will choose B EVERY time. Why wouldn't they? The problem here is that the OP and you have decided that one choice was the "right" choice and then want to punish the players for not making that choice.

 

[fuzzlewump]

@Krensky: Like I said, I'm not claiming anything about your game. But, to say impose your own opinions on the truth and say that is now the truth I don't think is a good maxim to be generalized to all game masters. Specifically, calling the characters ruthless jerks and only giving examples for how their decision will cause them problems is an example of making your own opinions the truth of the world.

So, should they only be punished for ignoring ambiguity? That's just assuming that they did in fact ignore it. NPCs should react in black, white, and shades of gray. All NPCs shouldn't give the player's the finger, different individuals and different groups will have different ethical theories and thus different reactions. You can definitely make a measurement of tendency, condemning the young girl to death will tend to cause more unfavorable reactions than when you condemn the older more experienced necromancers. But there will still be plenty favorable ones, especially among people who hate necromancers.

 

[FireLance]

@Krensky: Like I said, I'm not claiming anything about your game. But, to say impose your own opinions on the truth and say that is now the truth I don't think is a good maxim to be generalized to all game masters. Specifically, calling the characters ruthless jerks and only giving examples for how their decision will cause them problems is an example of making your own opinions the truth of the world.

So, should they only be punished for ignoring ambiguity? That's just assuming that they did in fact ignore it. NPCs should react in black, white, and shades of gray. All NPCs shouldn't give the player's the finger, different individuals and different groups will have different ethical theories and thus different reactions. You can definitely make a measurement of tendency, condemning the young girl to death will tend to cause more unfavorable reactions than when you condemn the older more experienced necromancers. But there will still be plenty favorable ones, especially among people who hate necromancers.

Wait ... are you telling me that there should be moral ambiguity in the world even if the PCs ignore it? And that the world shouldn't be black and white even if the PCs are? But if the DM doesn't make the world react to the PCs in a black and white fashion, how will the players ever learn that acting in a black and white fashion is wrong? Or something like that.