Stop being so paranoid

[Jürgen Hubert]

More like a certainty, at least with every group I've ever DM'ed for.

...

Wow. That's harsh. I don't think that would have happened in any group I've ever played with.

Is this kind of approach really that common in D&D? Killing other adventurers in cold blood for their stuff?

I agree, the fight will be a lot of fun.

Having the next encounter be a fight with the local militia, and the encounter after that, and maybe the one after that as well, is not what I find fun.

Why should the militia know about this, as long as they take some care to conceal their crime? Militias, to me, don't really strike me as the kind of people who will use divination spells on any group of adventurers nearby just in case they attack other adventuring groups.

No. The milita might ask about the other adventurers, but let them take the lies of the party at face value for a time (if they choose to lie, but any party who is willing to make a sneak attack on other adventurers strikes me as a bunch of weasels). Let them think that they have gotten away with it all.

Then, in subsequent adventures, I'd give them further opportunities to follow the path of Evil. Let them lie, cheat, murder, and get away with it all and get their spoils. Let them mock the stupidity of the authorities. But show them the consequences of their actions - bereaved families, increased poverty, and other effects which you would expect when a bunch of adventurers go around lying to, stealing from, and murdering good people.

But at some point, the authorities are going to become suspicious. And eventually, it is likely that their net of lies will become so convoluted that it will come crashing down. And when the full measure of their deeds becomes known, they will become the most reviled people in the country. Children scream and hide when they see the party. The streets empty themselves before them. Bards will sing about their villainous deeds. In fact, they will be blamed for deeds they didn't even commit, and blame them for all sorts of massacres, plagues, and murders even if they were nowhere nearby at the time. The mightiest heroes of the country will want to hunt them down.


If the party is able to fight all this off, then civilization will start to crumble. Their activities have wrecked the economy, reducing most people to barter. Their gold will become worthless, as no one remains who is able to sell them the stuff they want. Monsters begin to overrun the land, as the authorities are too weakened to stop them. Demons will start offering their assistance to them, claiming that they are "their lord's favorite servants".

Eventually, in another old, crumbling dungeon, they will find an ancient prophecy chiseled into a wall about the "Harbingers of Doom" who will destroy human civilization. As they read the prophecy, and it is very obvious that the prophecy refers to them and their deeds. And with this, the campaign ends.


And hopefully, the players will have learned something with this. If not, then maybe it's time to change the gaming group.

 

[Delta]

Then, in subsequent adventures, I'd give them further opportunities to follow the path of Evil. Let them lie, cheat, murder, and get away with it all and get their spoils. Let them mock the stupidity of the authorities. But show them the consequences of their actions...

You, sir, rock. Please add me to your newsletter.

(This reminds me minimally of a 1E group I had who decided robbery was better than assaulting T1. Among other things I applied the 1E suggestion "neg hp = scarring/mutilation" pretty liberally, so soon you had evil adventurers with no hand, gouged-out-eye, etc., prowling the travel lanes...)

 

[Leatherhead]

...

Wow. That's harsh. I don't think that would have happened in any group I've ever played with.

Is this kind of approach really that common in D&D? Killing other adventurers in cold blood for their stuff?

My first reaction to an odd bunch of people strolling casually in a dungeon with huge sacks of gold over their shoulder would be "These guys must be working for the enemy! Look, they even just now got payed."

But mostly, it is assumed there are no other adventurers in a generic DnD world, or else why are the PC's bothering to do all this stuff in the first place? Unless there is an adventurers guild, in which case the union will hear an earful of it.

 

[Starbuck_II]

...

No. The milita might ask about the other adventurers, but let them take the lies of the party at face value for a time (if they choose to lie, but any party who is willing to make a sneak attack on other adventurers strikes me as a bunch of weasels). Let them think that they have gotten away with it all.

What if the party only just kills people in dungeons? They aren't falling to path of evil directly.
So they get away with it. Sounds fun actually. Dead men tell no tells.

 

[Delta]

But mostly, it is assumed there are no other adventurers in a generic DnD world, or else why are the PC's bothering to do all this stuff in the first place?

Maybe new-school. But old-school, opposing adventuring parties were a major component of every random encounter list. The 1E DMG example of combat was specifically PCs encountering & fighting an evil adventuring party in a dungeon.

 

[cougent]

I always have a group of adventurer NPC's just "off camera" that are exact copies of my PC's to act as a constant reminder that they "are not alone" in the adventuring world.

 

[Jack Colby]

It is not an "artifact of the game"... it is a problem with new-school D&D play, the utterly ridiculous fear of fictional character (PC) death. If you spring a trap and die, so what? Death of a PC can be among the most fun and memorable aspects of gaming. Search for traps when reasonable to do so, but don't be so afraid. Traps are gonna' happen, and so should death, even pointless death. This is part of what makes it all worthwhile.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

You, sir, rock. Please add me to your newsletter.

Well, I do have a blog.

(And I'm also willing to take tokens of appreciations in the form of experience points... )

(This reminds me minimally of a 1E group I had who decided robbery was better than assaulting T1. Among other things I applied the 1E suggestion "neg hp = scarring/mutilation" pretty liberally, so soon you had evil adventurers with no hand, gouged-out-eye, etc., prowling the travel lanes...)

My general attitude towards GMing is that I allow the PCs almost complete freedom of action (within the limits of their actual physical/magical competence). They can try pretty much anything.

But almost all of their actions have consequences. Unfolding events in the campaign depend to a very large degree on their choices, moral or otherwise. And these consequences can be for good or ill.

Which has incidentally led to a lot of Angst in my current Exalted campaign. But the only way to emphasize that the PCs do have the power to change the world... is to give them the power to change the world. And the players seem to love that aspect of the campaign.

My first reaction to an odd bunch of people strolling casually in a dungeon with huge sacks of gold over their shoulder would be "These guys must be working for the enemy! Look, they even just now got payed."

Well, the appearance of an adventuring party including a dwarf in a goblin or orc dungeon might give them pause. And these adventurers probably have a bunch of fresh wounds signifying that they have been in a fight recently. And if they try to shadow the other group for a bit, they could hear them saying things like: "Did you see how I chopped the head of that orc right off? And how far it rolled?" And if nothing else works, I'd allow them to make a skill roll to identify these people.

But if they still jump to conclusions, I'd let them slaughter the other party. And then, when they return to civilization, they will hear that this party has indeed been fairly heroic, and set out to slaughter the local orcish menace (alternatively, if they think that these people have been paid by the orcs, they would have to assume that the orcs still kept some treasure for themselves, and proceed deeper into the dungeon. And then, of course, they would find all those killed orcs and triggered/disabled traps). So sooner or later, they would figure out that they have slaughtered decent, hard-working good folks because they jumped to conclusions.

Whoops.

So what do they do now? Confess their crimes, try to make some sort of penance in secret, or just shrug and proceed to spend their spoils?

Any of these responses will tell me something about their characters... which in turn gives me further hooks for role-playing opportunities. Which is part of what role-playing games are supposed to be about.

But mostly, it is assumed there are no other adventurers in a generic DnD world, or else why are the PC's bothering to do all this stuff in the first place? Unless there is an adventurers guild, in which case the union will hear an earful of it.

Oh, I assume that there are always some other adventurers around in the world. It's just that most of them die or retire young, and only few of them survive to high level.

What if the party only just kills people in dungeons? They aren't falling to path of evil directly.

Being civilized means that you carry civilization within you, and don't just put your values away once you leave town. Actions in dungeons have consequences as well - not necessarily for the PCs themselves, but for someone in the campaign world. Make sure that the players understand that.

So they get away with it. Sounds fun actually. Dead men tell no tells.

That's not necessarily true. They could turn into ghosts a few nights later. Or perhaps some relative tracks their bodies down, and raises them. This doesn't mean it has to happen immediately after their first such act, but sooner or later it could happen to them as well.

Personally, I'm against hitting player characters with the moral consequences of their actions immediately after the fact. That smacks of railroading - "do as I tell you, or I will punish you!". No, such consequences should take a while to simmer so that they will hit the PCs at the most inconvenient moment sometime down the road.

This will have the same intended effect (teaching the PCs that their moral transgressions have repercussions), but it also shows them that they can make real, meaningful choices.

 

[haakon1]

Oh, I assume that there are always some other adventurers around in the world. It's just that most of them die or retire young, and only few of them survive to high level.

That's also how I run it in my campaigns. After all, many dungeons feature dead adventurers, or at least beasts with old adventuring gear in their lairs -- it's pretty clear to me there are meant to be other adventurers, but they just don't matter as much.

consequences should take a while to simmer so that they will hit the PCs at the most inconvenient moment sometime down the road.

This will have the same intended effect (teaching the PCs that their moral transgressions have repercussions), but it also shows them that they can make real, meaningful choices.

I tend to agree.

 

[MarkB]

...

Wow. That's harsh. I don't think that would have happened in any group I've ever played with.

Is this kind of approach really that common in D&D? Killing other adventurers in cold blood for their stuff?

Every time our party has met what looked like a group of adventurers in a dungeon environment, they've turned out to be actively hostile to the point of using any peaceful overtures as an opportunity to get in the first strike (or position themselves for a sneak attack). And that's mostly in published modules.

So chalk this one up as another example of experience-induced player paranoia.