# DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.



## Final Attack (Mar 31, 2008)

*DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' players*

[long post]

Foreword: _I am not strict with alignments.  _ As I see alignments they are more or less 'goals'.  A small act of evil doesn't make someone evil.  However I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it).  I want them to either drop the facsade or repent, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to do it in my situation.


Situation

I am currently playing a long standing campaign with 3 friends.  Together they are a Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter/hexblade/sorcerer.  They have moved their way up in the ranks of the local army starting as pleb novices all the way to kingdom heroes.  Their history however is sordid.  

Before they became heroes they were on a mission to a Northern Island with 3 other NPCs guards.  One in particular was gruff and just didn't like them.  Because of this conflict the sorcerer would taunt him with dancing lights in their room.  This of course set off a fight between the two groups which started off non-leathal (NPCs).  But the PCs thinking "I'd rather die than lose a fist fight" pulled out weapons and started swinging.  The NPCs then pull out their weapons and they fight back with lethal force and lose.  It resulted in the death of the NPCs all except one, before it was stopped.

The remaining NPC didn't like the PCs but he decided to keep his mouth shut about the PCs killing the other fellow soilders.  

Now as a DM I let it slide ... though something similar has happened again.

***

Vincent is an "arbitor".  "Arbitors" are personal agents of the king whom have undergone 'special treatment' to enhance their abilities.  Basically he is powerful.  Arbitors also answer ONLY to the king and have right to kill (think old samurai).  He is cold, short with words, and acts like his word is law (mainly because it is).

The PCs witness a birth of two children.  The mother dies during the birthing, and the cleric communes with dead to ask her about what she wants done with the children.  He discovers that the father of the children is Vincent, and that she wants to keep it a secret from him. 
She says, "Don't let Vincent find out".  Vincent finds out.  He comes to collect one of the children.  He says, "I will take the boy."  The PCs try to talk him out of it and question his motives, but he doesn't see the need to explain himself to them.  "I will take the boy" He repeats.

PCs attack and kill Vincent in battle.  Not only do they do that, but the Paladin severs his head quickly after the battle.  Then they burn the body.

Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son.  Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.

*QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*

****

My now preposed plan:

Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade, as they are clearly acting on their own impulses, and not on goodness or law.

The town is afraid of them and nobody says anything as they kill the Arbitor but they know the seriousness of the situation and remain quiet.  Except one.  He yells, "The king will hear about this" and stalks off heading to Thoa (where the king is).  If the king DOES hear about this they will be in very big trouble, and will be banished if they are lucky.

Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning.  He is merely amused by the situation.   He has been watching them and knows everything about their past and present.  He wishes to help them.  He tells them that he had come to offer them positions as Arbitors.  They know that the training will significantly strengthen their characters, and they will be given land, money and anything they need.

The problem is a simple townsman is headed to tell the king that they have killed Vincent.  If they 'stop' this townsman their problem is solved and the reward will be theirs.

*Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?

Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?*


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Mar 31, 2008)

Since two of the two characters in question have deities watching over them, have they had any warnings or admonitions against continuing on the path they are treading towards corruption?  This is assuming the Paladin is a normal LG Paladin, and the Cleric is following a good deity, of course.  

Before you proceed with any course of action, I would recommend that you confer with your players beforehand and explain that, due to the wanton acts of murder the PCs have indulged in, they are becoming, or are already, Evil.  Ask if this is intentional on their parts, and if they wish to continue down the road they have currently set for themselves.

I would say that this is a good idea due to the fact that many players view having an alignment switch to Evil to be a punishment.  This is doubly true with a Paladin in your party, assuming core rules.  Make certain that the direction the campaign goes in from this point is one your players are comfortable with.


----------



## Final Attack (Mar 31, 2008)

*"I don't like the way he looked at me ..." ~cuts NPC throat~*

My players do not like NPCs who are rude to them.  To the point that they will instigate fights and then kill the NPCs.

As the DM should I just avoid making NPCs rude?  

Or is there some way I can train my players to be more accepting? *cracks DM whip*

I figure this is a common thing in DnD (well from the players I've seen) as players don't want to see their characters be bested by any stupid NPC.  They would sooner kill a man than lose a fist fight.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 31, 2008)

There are two ways to deal with this:

1) Out of Character: Talk to your players and determine the tone of the game (or come to a compromise about it).  Also, if you are playing with alignment, consider discussing what is considered "evil" or "chaotic".

2) In-Game: Make sure you play up the consequences of their action.  If they are just killing people for being rude, or busting out weapons and lethal magic in bar brawls then the law is gonna get on their ass eventually.  It can be hard to successfully adventure when you get a bad reputation and can't sell off loot, hire guides and other hirelings, are wanted by the law wherever you go, and have the family/friends/associates of people you've killed trying to kill _you _ all the time.

Also, try not to make too many NPCs into Jerky McJerkytons - though obviously, there will always be some percentage that are.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2008)

'My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my brother. Prepare to die.'

Alternatively, simply have their next victim secretly be a 20th level LE monk who's take a Vow of Poverty - substitute Vile feats for Exalted ones. He'll beat them to an inch of their lives and then tell them they're not worth killing.

But why are the NPCs rude in the first place?


----------



## phindar (Mar 31, 2008)

This is a fairly common PC trait, and one I used to be guilty of until I started running games.  Seeing from the other side of the screen how PC's treat NPC's really turned me around.  Nowadays, I love it when NPC's get the upper hand.

But short of making your players run a game for you and then punking their NPC's, I'm not sure there is any easy answer to this one.  I think the best method would be to simply bring up your concerns to the group in an open and non-confrontational manner.  

Typically, the PC-on-NPC anomosity stems out of the competative nature of the game; NPC's are there to beat or be beaten by the PC's.  In a dungeon this is largely true, outside of combat not so much, but the players might not see a difference.  Plus, any player who has spent any time in a game with a GM who has had favored GMPC's or otherwise untouchable NPC's will likely carry a strong distrust/hatred of all NPC's for many years and many gaming groups to come.  Having a NPC be rude in your game may be all that is needed to set this buried frustration off.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> ... PC's do stuff...




*QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*
Maybe.  At the least it is not an act of good.  You can argue that killing someone who wants to take his son is entitled to do so, especially if the mother is dead.  The players would argue that the dying woman did not want him to, and that they were acting on her command / desire.

Given your proposed plan though, it seems you already made up your mind on this, and just want to have someone on the board to agree with it.  Nothing wrong with that though, since by posting you also suggest your open to the idea that your first impulse might not be the right one.

*QUESTION 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?*
In general, unless you and your players get a great deal of enjoyment out of contentious alignment debates, my advice is to do nothing about the players murdering NPCs that are in no way critical to the plot.  The only exception to that would be Paladins and Monks if the act would damage the alignment, and in that case, do not dance around the issue.  Before they perform the act, tell them 'do this and you are in breach of your alignment'.

More generally, as long as they are not causing you to seriously derail your adventure plans, then why worry about it?

If the Arbiter is important to the plot as you say, I think your general plan is fine.  The NPC's will make it clear to the players that they think they are all murderous scum and want nothing more to do with them.  They may even inform the players of this, and tell them that any aid (selling them supplies, giving them an inn room) to the players makes them guilty of treason by association.  I figure that killing this Arbiter ought to be the sort of thing where the players either have to answer to the king or leave the country.

I do think that having the arbiter offer is something that will only make sense of the offer is completely bogus.  As a player, if I killed one arbiter and another one said "here, have some delicious candy for commiting that murder, but only if you go commit another" would have me suspicious.

*QUESTION 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?*
Depends on your players.  It is entirely possible that they wont remember the bit about the townsmen who left to go alert the authorities.  It is also possible that your players just wont care and will go and murder that townsmen.


----------



## Delta (Mar 31, 2008)

Depends on what kind of game you'd like to run. 

If the game is wide-open, then allow the PCs' alignments to slide over into Chaos/Evil territory. They're quite possibly powerful enough that they become the untouchable, all-feared anti-heroes in the campaign region. (Like a black knight, or the mexican bandit gang in any western.)


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 31, 2008)

I am going to merge this thread with the other by the same OP on basically the same topic. - El.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> [long post]
> 
> Foreword: _I am not strict with alignments.  _ As I see alignments they are more or less 'goals'.  A small act of evil doesn't make someone evil.  However I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it).




When a PC's alignment shades towards evil or chaos, it doesn't particularly matter for a fighter or a sorcerer. You have their rep influence the NPCs' reactions, but otherwise, lenient works. When there's a paladin or a cleric in the party, alignment has to be at least somewhat descriptive as well as a goal to aspire to. Your PCs are a classic example of why.



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> Situation
> 
> ... Their history however is sordid.
> 
> ...




This is classic "low self-esteem bully" type of evil. Which seemingly went unpunished by the gods and the army in this world. So, of course, it happened again. 

I'd suggest that you shouldn't have let it slide as it set a precedent that the party can murder with impunity and that the world doesn't even try to discipline its criminals. How effectively did they cover up their crime? How on earth did the gods let this character BECOME a paladin after not repenting his murder? Why didn't the NPC report them to the authorities once he was safe? 



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> Vincent is an "arbitor".  "Arbitors" are personal agents of the king whom have undergone 'special treatment' to enhance their abilities.  Basically he is powerful.  Arbitors also answer ONLY to the king and have right to kill (think old samurai).  He is cold, short with words, and acts like his word is law (mainly because it is).
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




That's irrelevant: it's not a lawful act, which should ding the paladin hard. 

Whether or not it's evil depends on their intent, on whether they had strong evidence that this guy would have been an abusive father (and not just a cold, distant one), and on whether there were less lethal means available to them to resolve the problem. I'm guessing that it's evil based on their history, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Everyone saw them do this? And they expect to get away with it? Are they crazy? Killing the idiot who yells at the heavily armed psychopaths doesn't solve this problem for them. Eventually the authorities are going to wonder where their arbiter is. And they'll investigate with the full might of the law behind it. And they will find a populace that will talk to the authorities. 

And, guess what, no matter what the authorities thought of the arbiter, you cannot let important men in your employ be slaughtered or else you won't be in power for very long. Murder one arbiter because you don't like his decisions and you assault the entire arbiter system. 

So put me down as thinking that this Hades, whatever his alignment, is not going to REWARD the PCs for their actions, because it directly impacts his power as an arbiter. 

And if you reward the PLAYERS' actions here, you're just going to continue to have a party of little dictators running around.

Look: Clearly the players WANT TO BE OUTLAWS and explore shades of gray. Let them. Change the paladin's alignment, make him a paladin of slaughter or freedom and change the campaign accordingly:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm


----------



## Bardsandsages (Mar 31, 2008)

Sounds like you have a case of players suffering from Chaotic Stupidity.

The Paladin should have been at a minimum spiritually slapped around by his god after the first fight.  It isn't even about alignment.  He's a paladin.  You don't become a paladin without having some discipline, particularly military discipline.  He of all people should have put a stop to the sorcerer tormenting the NPC that they were suppose to be working with.  

Unless Vincent is a pedofile or something, there was zero reason for them to kill him.  A man finds out he has a son that he didn't know he had, and wants his kid.  End of story.  The party should not have carte blanche to kill anyone just because they don't like the way the guy talks (which is what it appears they are doing.)

The fact that the town is AFRAID of the party...and again afraid of a paladin...is a bad sign.  This isn't an alignment issue, its a bad players running amok because nobody can challenge them issue.  

As far as handling the situation, I'd guilt the crap out of the party.  Maybe have Vincent come to them as a ghost or something.  Turns out Vincent has this gruff facade, but actually wanted to be a good father but the woman thought he wouldn't really care for the boy.  The whole "if only they had talked to each other" tragic romance line.   Maybe Vincent kept the relationship with the woman a secret because he feared the King would not approve of one of his arbitors having a personal life or something.  But make Vincent more sympathetic so that the players realize they screwed up.  

Considering that they have been getting away with this behavior without reprecussions to date, I don't know why they would avoid killing the messenger.  Unless you have the guy traveling with his small son, and the little boy screaming "Please don't kill my daddy!"  

Either you ignore it and let them run amok, or you have there be serious repricussions for what they have done.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?




Probably neutral.  I'll bet that they thought Vincent was some kind of evil bad guy who planned on doing something nasty to the child.  They killed him because he wouldn't tell them his plans, so they feared the worst.  Well, that's my bet.



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?




React to the PCs.  Don't have any outcome in mind.  Just roll with whatever they do.  It's an awesome situation.

Oh yeah, and don't take away any powers from the Cleric or Paladin.  Maybe try out what I do - let the players have the authority to say when they need to atone.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack; what are the ages of your players, out of interest? How do YOU feel about what happened?


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Mar 31, 2008)

In regards to Vincent, I'm going to have to side with the players on principle; if not on methodology.  The mother wished for Vincent to not have any dealing with the children, the PCs should have just tried to stop him; probably not with lethal force, but they should have tried to honor her wishes.  I hear there are several monasteries and paladin daycamps out there looking for orphans to grow up to be next generation's PCs.

In general, when there's a quiet, stoic NPC that very seldom talks and seems to have an icy heart, he's a bad guy that will betray the party or an elder mentor that will die horribly to spur the party into action.  

All in all, if there was an NPC wandering around with my party whose "word was law" and who answered only to the king, I'd be really upset as a player.  The heart of adventuring is that you're all basically wandering about, taking polite suggestions and money from those in power until you *are* those in power.  When some Emperor's Hand NPC comes swaggering up to your party and says "I will take the boy.", the natural tendency of a good number of groups is going to be "Why?" and then, when no answer is given, "No!  Tell us why, and then maybe you can have the boy."

I'm not saying what they did was right, I'm saying that it should have been the expected action.  

Any religious PCs whose alignment may be affected by this should have the whole "divine agent in a dream" experience, but not lose any of their powers for an isolated incident.

-----

As for the Sorcerer NPC murdering spree; all the NPC probably would have had to do is ask nicely for the Sorcerer to stop.  I bet he didn't, though.  I bet he was too "proud" and "manly" to politely ask for anything.  

When has *any* adventuring party in a fist fight actually kept it a fist fight?  Show of hands?

Also, what kind of idiocy is it to attack people who are known slaughterers of various sentient creatures?

-TRRW


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning.  He is merely amused by the situation.   He has been watching them and knows everything about their past and present.  He wishes to help them.  He tells them that he had come to offer them positions as Arbitors.  They know that the training will significantly strengthen their characters, and they will be given land, money and anything they need.



 Color me confused.  What are these Arbitors?  This one is just amused that the PCs killed one of his own?  They don't watch out for each other?  Also, he has the authority to make them into Arbitors?  That authority doesn't reside solely with the king?  As roguerouge stated, this sounds like you are rewarding the players for their actions - an odd thing to do if you are unhappy with the way they are behaving.  

I don't have anything is particular against the way your players are playing, with the sole exception of a player choosing Paladin as a class to get the benefits of it and apparently ignoring the restrictions that class has to abide by to get those benefits.  

I would talk to your players outside of the game to figure out what they want and find a way to play a game you are all comfortable with.


----------



## Mark (Mar 31, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> There are two ways to deal with this:
> 
> 1) Out of Character: Talk to your players and determine the tone of the game (or come to a compromise about it).  Also, if you are playing with alignment, consider discussing what is considered "evil" or "chaotic".
> 
> ...





Nice nutshell.  Especially the part about Jerky McJerkytons.  I sometimes see DMs fall into a rut when portraying NPCs and Jerky McJerkytons seem to be the easy path they wander down.  I think it is part and parcel of DMs falling into the PCs vs. DM trap.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade




What do you mean "tempt them to do evil"? They don't need tempting. Attacking and killing people because they are rude to you pretty much gets you there. Attacking and killing an envoy of the ruler because he asked to claim his child makes sure you are way over the line (unless, for some odd reason, the ruler and his minions are evil in and of themselves, although the PCs have apparently been working for him anyway, so if they are, then they are already evil).

This isn't really a close question. These PCs have engaged in evil acts. They are murderous criminals at the very least.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2008)

I have a question do your players wnat to role play or are they more interested in kicking in doors and killings things and taking their loot?

If they are rhe second type then they are not really interested in having to deal with the consquences of their actions. And trying to make them do so is going to give you a group of unhappy players. With players like these I would not put in moral dilemmas. I would just give them a lot of bad guys to take care of.


If they want a more role playing game where actions have consquences then you need to add them. PCs don't live in a vaccum if they are going around killing people then that is going to get around and soon they are going to find themselves either hunted with a huge reward on their head or shunned and noone will give them help.

In the case of Vincent they were honoring what the dead mom wanted. When they tried to stop him who drew weapons first? If it was Vincent then it is not an evil act it could be viewed as self defense. If it was the party then it becomes more tricky. 

As a DM I would not have had Vincent fight back or any of the other NPCs they have slaughtered I would have them say I am not going to fiight you. Then if the PCs kill them they have commited murder and bam the paladin loses his powers for the violation. 

As long as you have the NPCs fighting back the PCs are going to feel justified killing them.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

Well, the characters are certainly heading for the outlaws' road, that's for sure. 

It's clear the paladin player doesn't either care much for the paladin's behavior code or doesn't really understand it. I'd sit him down and ask him, quite frankly, what the heck he thinks he's doing and how long he expects the character to retain his paladin powers because, right now, the sands on that hourglass are running out quickly.

I'm not really sure what's going on with the other arbitor, Hades. But with that name and his blatant temptations, I'd make him an agent of an evil power or a corrupting devil of some sort and not a "normal" arbitor at all. With a name like that with the offer on the table, as a player, my danger alarms would have been going off in a major way. Do your players even seem to suspect anything along these lines or do they think the offer is legit, has no strings attached, etc.?

I can't see how the PCs can get the reward without killing, imprisoning, or otherwise engineering the disappearance of the townsman. And if I were the DM, I would make sure there were no way they could get the reward without doing just that. This is their acid test. If they butch the townsman for their own ambitions, you have your answer. Murder in the name of ambition? Evil as clear as day.


----------



## Thanael (Mar 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Probably neutral.  I'll bet that they thought Vincent was some kind of evil bad guy who planned on doing something nasty to the child.  They killed him because he wouldn't tell them his plans, so they feared the worst.  Well, that's my bet.




You got to be kidding. 

"He's not telling us his plans! ...Kill him!"  Doesn't sound neutral to me.  It is also decidedly unlawful which for the paladin is equally important.


----------



## endlessruin (Mar 31, 2008)

I had a group of players like this when I first began playing. I will admit my players and I were all a bit immature at the time and new to role playing. My players would basically kill anyone who crossed them, they didn't like or that said or did something they weren't happy with. One of the characters even killed his own brother to get his gear. This wasn't that brother you always hated, more like the older brother who nurtured and supported you. Eventually I got tired of their crap and just let them have it. One of them got killed and the other nearly died in a tussle with someone who just happened to be bigger and badder than they were. In fact it was the first time I can remember them really fleeing a fight. The others were hunted for years in game by this guy and it made them regret ever screwing with people. I encourage my players to have a good time and act as freely as they like. I just make sure they realize there are consequences for their actions. I also like to ask  question that provoke role playing ,"Would a Cleric of [insert faith here] do that?" or "As a Paladin how might this decision affect you?". I do it for all classes, races, cultures. It sounds like your players have alignments that have drifted towards Chaotic Stupid or Stupid Evil. They aren't thinking any of their actions through nor considering any of the npc's when they act. It is impossible to create a reasonable story when the characters make every effort to destroy it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> Before they became heroes they were on a mission to a Northern Island with 3 other NPCs guards.  One in particular was gruff and just didn't like them.  Because of this conflict the sorcerer would taunt him with dancing lights in their room.  This of course set off a fight between the two groups which started off non-leathal (NPCs).  But the PCs thinking "I'd rather die than lose a fist fight" pulled out weapons and started swinging.




Picking a fight with someone who is otherwise neutral because you "just didn't like them" is both evil and chaotic.  IMHO, turning a non-lethal combat into a lethal one because you cannot win a non-lethal combat (and there are no real negative consequences of losing the combat) is also evil.  

Pride is generally not an acceptable reason for murder unless there is a strong cultural background behind it, in which case there is normally a strict procedure that must be followed.  Some cultures would actually consider pride to be a sin of deadly proportions.



> PCs attack and kill Vincent in battle.  Not only do they do that, but the Paladin severs his head quickly after the battle.  Then they burn the body.




Here, there PCs are torn between two "good" sides (the mother and the Arbitor).  Picking one side over the other is neither good nor evil.  However, using violence as the first possible way of dealing with the situation (instead of being diplomatic, stealing the child, going to the king or other higher power for arbitration) is tending toward the evil side of things.  Desacrating a body for no purpose other than your own enjoyment is definetally evil.  Unless there is some tradition of beheading and burning people instead of having their bodies buried or returned to their families, I would consider this evil.

Also, killing an officer of the law that you follow, regardless of whether it is done for evil purposes or not, is chaotic.


----------



## Dimitri Mazieres (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> [...] PCs attack and kill Vincent in battle.  Not only do they do that, but the Paladin severs his head quickly after the battle.  Then they burn the body.
> 
> Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son.  Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.
> 
> *QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*



That is a decidedly evil act. The PCs didn't have any right or reason whatsoever to kill the NPC.  The paladin should lose his paladin status and powers, as well as the cleric, depending on his alignment and deity.

As for alignment change, the overall attitude you describe is certainly chaotic ("my way or the high way") and the unjustified killing of (so far) innocent people is evil. As stated before, pride is not a valid justification for such behavior (and what you describe looks more like blood lust to me). You should decide whether these episodes were isolated, or if they're part of a common trend that justifies the alignment change.

Oh, and tell your players to grow up.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 31, 2008)

If they've killed the King's Man, then they're going to be declared outlaws.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 31, 2008)

No idea about evilness, but the illegality is irrefutable.  They're criminals.  Start putting up bounty notices and bounty hunters everywhere they go.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Mar 31, 2008)

I did read all the replies but heres my take.

Personally i think ever example you gave was a act of evil. There was never a reason they had to kill the people in any of the above situations. 

In my mind they should get warnings from their gods the cleric and pally anyways and if they keep it up. Have the gods strip them of their power. The cleric can attone or find a god more suited to his outlook. Same with the pally, perhaps becoming a black guard and then you can run a evil based game. Which sounds like the players would enjoy.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> *QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*
> 
> ****
> 
> ...





Yes, its an evil act. Yes your party is walking teh dark side.

sooner or later their actions will catch up with them. guards....if they kill them then bounty hunters then if they die, perhaps adventurers.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 31, 2008)

Embrace the concept of evil PCs.  It's fun.

My characters just bought and sacrificed three slaves because they heard the best diviner in town used anthropomancy.  Another one stole the eyes of some poor innocent girl because they gave a minor benefit (although to be fair; he gave her his in return, at least.)

Even I was shocked.  But at the same time, we're all having a blast.

Regimented morality in D&D defeats the purpose, especially if your players just want to play pseudo-escapist power trip type games once in a while.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 31, 2008)

I agree with Hobo that evil PCs can be fun..................................for about 2 sessions, as long as there are some limits and the evil is camp and a bit of a harmless power trip. Then it gets old really quickly. 

But you can also sometimes learn things about your friends that are best left unexplored. It can get uncomfortable for the DM very quickly unless you are really "into" this kind of thing as well.

Best left alone if you ask me, especially if you are a novice DM.Far better just to direct your friends' murderous rampages into attacking something that is really "evil" and just play a black and white game for a while.

Good luck.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 31, 2008)

dyx said:
			
		

> "He's not telling us his plans! ...Kill him!"




That doesn't sound like what happened.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 31, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> I agree with Hobo that evil PCs can be fun..................................for about 2 sessions, as long as there are some limits and the evil is camp and a bit of a harmless power trip. Then it gets old really quickly.



In other words... you *don't* agree with me.  

We just finished a level 1-23 campaign (Age of Worms) with only a couple good PC's in the entire bunch.  I've played long-running games where the PC's were members of organized criminal organizations.  I've played games where PC's were government assassins.  It didn't get old.  Evil does not equal randomly violent or stupid.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> *QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*



Yes, absolutely.



> *Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?*



*

This:


			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		


			Before you proceed with any course of action, I would recommend that you confer with your players beforehand and explain that, due to the wanton acts of murder the PCs have indulged in, they are becoming, or are already, Evil. Ask if this is intentional on their parts, and if they wish to continue down the road they have currently set for themselves.
		
Click to expand...


Tell them - out of character - to make a decision and/or drop the facade. After that, though, I don't know how you should handle the situation, since I don't know your group dynamics. I, for one, would be ganking the paladin and cleric so fast their heads would spin, but that's just me - no idea what would work for your particular group.




			Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?
		
Click to expand...


*Beats me.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> That doesn't sound like what happened.




True. It actually sounds a lot better than what actually happened: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of the king, and who we have no reason to believe is evil or engaged in any wrongdoing, asked for his child to be turned over to him - kill him!".


----------



## Ydars (Mar 31, 2008)

Dear Hobo; I am not sure the evil versus non-evil party thing is something anyone is right or wrong about, when speaking of theit own preferences. It sounds like your long-running evil game was fun and you had some mature players and a good/experienced DM. 

I was just putting the other side of the coin, given that the DM asking for help sounds a little out of his depth already and his PCs sound, how did you put it, randomly violent and stupid already. 

This does not sound like ideal material for exploring the darker side of roleplaying to me, but I may be wrong.

No offense to yourself intended or implied.

Elen sila lumenn omentielvo.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 31, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> True. It actually sounds a lot better than what actually happened: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of the king, and who we have no reason to believe is evil or engaged in any wrongdoing, asked for his child to be turned over to him - kill him!".




Or: "The tyrant's agent, above any law himself, wants his child and won't tell us why.  The child's dead mother doesn't want him to have the child.  Let's stop him."

Add in the fact that _this is D&D_ and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Add in the fact that _this is D&D_ and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.




This is D&D and there are things such as wish and true resurrection. Even violence is a temporary measure when it comes to conflict resolution.


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 31, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Evil does not equal randomly violent or stupid.




No, but, based on the stories one sees on EN World, among D&D PCs, there's a high degree of corellation.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Or: "The tyrant's agent, above any law himself, wants his child and won't tell us why.  The child's dead mother doesn't want him to have the child.  Let's stop him."
> 
> Add in the fact that _this is D&D_ and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.




The tyrant _who we work for_ has an agent. Who is the arbitor of law. Who it has never been established at any point is evil. Or that the tyrant is evil. Or that the "tyrant" is, in fact, a tyrant, rather than just a run-of-the-mill fantasy king employing adventurers. But sure, this arbiter of the law and personal agent of the king who won't explain himself to a bunch of ragamuffin cutthroats as to why he would like _his own child_ turned over to him should be killed out of hand. Because that's not evil. Mind if I roll my eyes a bit?

You made a lot of assumptions that are really unwarranted in your hysterically funny contortions to try to make what is pretty clearly an evil act "not evil".

And by the way, "D&D is violent, so murder at the drop of a hat isn't evil" is pretty much a non-starter of an argument.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 31, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Dear Hobo; I am not sure the evil versus non-evil party thing is something anyone is right or wrong about, when speaking of theit own preferences. It sounds like your long-running evil game was fun and you had some mature players and a good/experienced DM.



Oh, I know.  I just thought it was funny that you said "I agree with Hobo" and then went on to disagree with me completely. 


			
				Ydars said:
			
		

> I was just putting the other side of the coin, given that the DM asking for help sounds a little out of his depth already and his PCs sound, how did you put it, randomly violent and stupid already.
> 
> This does not sound like ideal material for exploring the darker side of roleplaying to me, but I may be wrong.



I agree; thinking that what they're doing is actually justified and that they can call their characters good is the problem.  Thinking that the PC's actions don't have any consequences.  Good or evil, or even no alignment whatsoever (actually my preferred way to play) are all viable playstyles, but clearly the entire group has to be on the same page on how the game is going to go down.  I think that's the sticking point; if the DM thinks these actions are clearly evil (as do I) and the players think that they're good, then they need to talk it out and say, "hey, if you wanna play this way, here's what could happen to you: loss of paladin status, loss of cleric spells (for clerics of a good god), outlaw status if their role in the murders become well-known and the countryside is relatively settled and lawful... etc."  But if they don't think there are consequences for those kinds of actions and the DM does, then one way or another, it's going to come to a head at some point, and someone will be disappointed in the way the campaign turned out.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 31, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> The remaining NPC didn't like the PCs but he decided to keep his mouth shut about the PCs killing the other fellow soilders.
> 
> Now as a DM I let it slide ... though something similar has happened again.




My advice is to stop being gamist and start being simulationist about how the world reacts to the PC's.  Don't decide based on what's best for the game/easiest to run.  Decide based on what the NPC's, as characters, would reasonably do.  Let the chips fall where they may.

If you run the world this way, there will be consequences for PC's actions, and complex, interesting plots will develop.

Or just let it go and let them play it like a video game, where they can kill for no reason and nobody much cares.




			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> PCs attack and kill Vincent in battle.  Not only do they do that, but the Paladin severs his head quickly after the battle.  Then they burn the body.
> 
> Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son.  Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.
> 
> *QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*




In the modern US, it's serious felonies -- kidnapping and murder.  In Western (and every other!) tradition, killing someone without a reason is considered evil.  So heck yes, it's evil.

More importantly, in a campaign where the NPC's react as characters instead of the DM making personally calls, killing Vincent is like killing a cop.  All other members of your law enforcement community will take it extremely seriously.  The PC's have just become your campaign's most wanted, whether the good guys (that would be not the PC's) know who they are looking for or not.



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning.  He is merely amused by the situation.   He has been watching them and knows everything about their past and present.  He wishes to help them.  He tells them that he had come to offer them positions as Arbitors.  They know that the training will significantly strengthen their characters, and they will be given land, money and anything they need.




Unless Hades is insane, this makes no sense.  How many state troopers would roll up to a burning patrol car with dead troopers inside, laugh, and make a job offer to the gang members holding the gasoline cans?



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> *Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?*



*

Send an army of arbitors to kill the PC's.  Make the PC's outlaws, who everyone is afraid to help (read: sell food to, shelter, etc.), bounty hunters will track them, and others will try to kill them in their sleep for the reward money.  The PC's chose to be hunted by murdering a lawman, so let them have it with both barrels.  "Bad boys bad boys, what you gunna do, what you gunna do when they come for you?"  The lawlessness of a fantasy/Wild West milleau doesn't just mean PC's can do anything they want, it also means the NPC's don't need to be nice to them.  This could make the campaign quite different and memorable.



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		


			Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?
		
Click to expand...


*
I think they will act like the villains they clearly are.  I just hope you reward them for their behavoir.


----------



## Ydars (Mar 31, 2008)

Hobo; what I meant was "You were right for yourself, in your situation, but perhaps not in this one." I was trying (too hard) to be diplomatic given the sometimes vitriolic nature of "debate" on this forum.

I don't know about you, but I prefer Light to Heat when it comes to discussion, any day of the week?


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 31, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Everyone saw them do this? And they expect to get away with it? Are they crazy? Killing the idiot who yells at the heavily armed psychopaths doesn't solve this problem for them. Eventually the authorities are going to wonder where their arbiter is. And they'll investigate with the full might of the law behind it. And they will find a populace that will talk to the authorities.
> 
> And, guess what, no matter what the authorities thought of the arbiter, you cannot let important men in your employ be slaughtered or else you won't be in power for very long. Murder one arbiter because you don't like his decisions and you assault the entire arbiter system.
> 
> ...




Nod, exactly.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 31, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This is D&D and there are things such as wish and true resurrection. Even violence is a temporary measure when it comes to conflict resolution.




If you chop off the head and burn the body, as the party did, they are trying to make it quite permanent.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Hobo; what I meant was "You were right for yourself, in your situation, but perhaps not in this one." I was trying (too hard) to be diplomatic given the sometimes vitriolic nature of "debate" on this forum.



Confused.  ??  You think my debate is "debate" and vitriolic?


			
				Ydars said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I prefer Light to Heat when it comes to discussion, any day of the week?



I don't know about you, but that's what I'm doing?  Heck, I was even agreeing with you!


----------



## cougent (Apr 1, 2008)

It seems to me that from the very questions posed by the OP that he considers these as evil acts.  So the issue really seems like it is going to a personal issue between DM and Players, and maybe that is the best place to solve it.  Especially now since te OP has already let some of it pass without recourse, to retroactively impose recourse now in any form is probably not going to sit well with the players.  As others have mentioned, I think a serious OOG discussion is in order to determine what the players want / expect from the game.  If they just want a "kill bad guys / take their stuff" game with no alignment overtones to worry about, then the DM has to decide if he can do that and be happy as well.  As mentioned above, throw plenty of truly bad guys at them and let them kill away without dealing with nuances of quasi-bad / quasi-good shades of gray.  This is not meant as an insult to the players, they may just want that style of play and their is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 1, 2008)

Evil and chaotic. The paladin is no longer a paladin. The entire group is being hunted down for arrest, trial, and appropriate punishment. Run a final adventure that results in the PCs going down in a blaze of glory like Butch and Sundance. Make up new PCs and try again.


----------



## hong (Apr 1, 2008)

-1. This is not an alignment issue.

0. This is why, as a general rule, the people with blue circles around their feet should not be played as annoying.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You made a lot of assumptions that are really unwarranted in your hysterically funny contortions to try to make what is pretty clearly an evil act "not evil".




I was just trying to look at it from the point of view of the players.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And by the way, "D&D is violent, so murder at the drop of a hat isn't evil" is pretty much a non-starter of an argument.




That wasn't my argument.


----------



## Final Attack (Apr 1, 2008)

The primary thing I was looking for was ideas, and opinions.  Thanks to everyone who responded.

My story line is quite complex and the game is very long running so there was information left out to keep my post succinct.  For those who asked we are all in our early 20s.  I frequently encourage freedom of choice, and RARELY try to ‘railroad’ their options in the game, hence my reluctance to reprimand them.  I frequently talk with them OOC about their actions and try to get justification for their actions.  We have a pretty understanding table.

There is a lot of roleplaying, but the fighter is very quick to instigate fights.  But Paladin and cleric always back him up.  One thing not originally mentioned is upon cutting the head off Vincent a painfully bright light from the wound blinded the Pally.  This is a planned punishment, one that will last a year before he can overcome it.  Hades (introduced as Linous, Hades is only a pet name I use for him, yes he is dangerous and evil) will not take the killing of Vincent lightly, he merely wants to have the PCs become his pawns through blackmail. His calm demeanour is to keep the PCs relaxed.



			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> Look: Clearly the players WANT TO BE OUTLAWS and explore shades of gray. Let them. Change the paladin's alignment, make him a paladin of slaughter or freedom and change the campaign accordingly:
> 
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm




The concept of making them outlaws is a good notion.  One I haven't thought through.  Though many people do agree that they should at least become outlaws.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I was just trying to look at it from the point of view of the players.




Only unreasonable players would view it the way you have suggested, since it assumes all kinds of wacky mental contortions. The only truly reasonable interpretation a player could draw from the facts given is pretty much: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of the king, and who we have no reason to believe is evil or engaged in any wrongdoing, asked for his child to be turned over to him." Anything that strays too far from that is just nutty. The non-evil response to this set of facts is never "kill him!"



> _That wasn't my argument._




Really? Because this:



> Add in the fact that this is D&D and you get violence - there's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.




Looks exactly like that was the argument you were making. Effectively, you seem to be excusing murderous mayhem as "not evil" on the ground that D&D is violent. You may want to clarify your argument if that's not what you intended.


----------



## Harmon (Apr 1, 2008)

Murder because they have the power to kill whom ever they want without fear.

They murdered party members cause they didn't want to lose a fist fight?

They are not evil, they just have no moral grounds.

A good person treats people with respect, no matter their status.

I guess I just see myself handling these two situations completely differently, and not catching a thread about it later on a gaming web site asking if my playing style is evil.


----------



## dontpunkme (Apr 1, 2008)

In the campaign I DM if the Aasimar paladin and Dwarven cleric (both of Bahamut) committed these acts it'd be immediate loss of class abilities.  The paladin gets some really special abilities, but they come at the great cost (as far as whimsical unbridaled fun is a cost) of having to adhere to a strict code of conduct.  The code of conduct includes both lawful and good restrictions.  Killing the other soldiers without any provocation was murder (if you drew weapons first you can hardly claim self-defense).  Killing the arbitor was absolutely unlawful.  If the mother had still been alive and the father demanded the child the mother would have had no choice but to turn the child over.  Furthermore, the desecration of his remains was undoubtedly evil (and possibly illegal depending on the kingdom's laws).  

Honesty, I would strip the players of all of their abilities, if they wanted to repent and make restitution and get atonement spells then they might get back their class abilities (the paladin because of the lawful aspect would also have to suffer any punishment lobbied against him by the king).  In all reality though, the king would likely have them put to death.  If the king didn't he only invites more of the same to happen to more of his arbitors.  If you decide to go light on them and banish them from the kingdom (and in full reality that is going EXTREMELY light on them) then make sure you give them some quest in conjunction with their atonement.  Make them restore order and law in some lawless village dominated by a evil power center in another nation.

I would talk to the players in advance and let them know all of this out of character.  Then I would sit down and see if they wanted to rework their characters (like many people have already suggested blackguard and cleric of an evil deity).  Just remember, you're not the one who is screwing their characters, the players are.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 1, 2008)

Personally I think the fact that you have a cleric and a paladin is an advantage, as it introduces some interesting RPing opportunities vis a vis their dieties.

In a somewhat similar situation (but not as extreme) the PCs found that they were praying for some spells but got given other spells (as an example they might always end up with "atonement" instead of their favourite spell of that level). The Paladin starts feeling a 'coldness' when he prays, and finds that his 'divine grace' goes on the blink and so forth.

At the time it added an interesting extra dimension to the game and went down well; additionally it helped steer the party back onto more reasonable waters.

Cheers


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Evil and chaotic. The paladin is no longer a paladin. The entire group is being hunted down for arrest, trial, and appropriate punishment. Run a final adventure that results in the PCs going down in a blaze of glory like Butch and Sundance. Make up new PCs and try again.



Evil: almost certainly.  Chaotic: maybe.

Hunted down for arrest and trial?  Maybe.  This all assumes an ambient level of law and order, as well as criminal investigation, that may or may not be appropriate for the setting.  The guy they killed?  He may just be MIA.  The kingdom might be much more "Wild West" like in nature rather than CSI: Waterdeep.

Those are interesting alternatives, but they're not the only "realistic" alternatives.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 1, 2008)

As others said, don't play your NPCs as stupid and suicidal. I'd have assumed an Arbiter was intelligent enough not to provoke a bunch of hot-headed and dangerous adventurers known to use violence. Would it have been too much for the NPC to simply give some (untrue or not) reason? Or to fake some concern for his kids? Or to give some "the mother was insane/evil/frightened" spiel? How did he gain his post then, if he can't even handle PCs without getting killed?

Just look at it from the other side of the screen: You have a PC, that walks up to a group of powerful NPCs known for their violent tendencies, and tries to tell them "Give me the baby" and won't give any explanation. Sense motive anyone? Intelligence check? Anything to tell the player "Hey, it's a bad idea to antagonise those people"?

Or, to sum it up: If the NPC is doing the equivalent to a PC walking up and trying to boss a dragon around, then the consequence is the same. Consequences and simulationism do not just apply to PCs.

If you play your NPCs as having a sense of self-preservation, and with more brains and manners than excessive pride you'd reduce such incidents.

That said, I run a campaign where people kill for honor/pride. Quite frequently. A knight would rather die than let an insult or rudeness left unanswered. I assume however, that this also causes the stupidly rude people to get weeded out early on. Not many who have a penchant for making their superiours angry live to see old age - or even 25. And far fewer will pick a fight with heroes. So, most NPCs my PCs meet are polite, and respectful, and used to swallow a lot from nobles and others above their station.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.

That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM.  Generally it's not a good idea to piss your players off "on principle."  Talk to them, let them know what *you* think is appopriate, and make sure that they understand why.  If they want to have a beer and pretzels game where they kill anyone who thwarts them and you decide that they lose their paladin status, cleric spells, and they become outlaws to boot, you haven't accomplished anything except design a game specifically to frustrate and annoy your players.  Don't do that.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 1, 2008)

I agree that the communication needs to happen, and that's why I'd like to recommend again the paladin variants in the SRD as a way of allowing the player of the paladin to keep playing his character.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Just look at it from the other side of the screen: You have a PC, that walks up to a group of powerful NPCs known for their violent tendencies, and tries to tell them "Give me the baby" and won't give any explanation. Sense motive anyone? Intelligence check? Anything to tell the player "Hey, it's a bad idea to antagonise those people"?




If you replace "known for their violent tendencies" with "known to be a paladin and a good aligned cleric", as a PC I would not expect their first reaction to be an attempt to kill me.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.
> 
> That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM.




QFT.  (And Fenes speaks truth as well)

Brad


----------



## Fenes (Apr 1, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> If you replace "known for their violent tendencies" with "known to be a paladin and a good aligned cleric", as a PC I would not expect their first reaction to be an attempt to kill me.




Well, in my game, "good" does not mean "non-violent". In the case of a paladin, which is a knight, quite the contrary.

I could even make a case for the paladin to be in the right for killing the arbiter, if the arbiter offered insult through his behaviour. It would most likely have had to be done in a duel though.

That's in my campaign though, where "good" is "good according to medieval custom" not "good as defined by the western civilisation of the 21st century".


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> That said, I run a campaign where people kill for honor/pride. Quite frequently. A knight would rather die than let an insult or rudeness left unanswered.




Yes, there are certainly people like that. No one is disputing that fact. Normally, however, we call those who kill people in response to an insult "evil". The fact that they are knights or nobles doesn't make their callous murdering ways any less evil.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, there are certainly people like that. No one is disputing that fact. Normally, however, we call those who kill people in response to an insult "evil". The fact that they are knights or nobles doesn't make their callous murdering ways any less evil.




"Good" in my game is not defined by our modern views, but by medieval/fantasy views. And an insult is enough justification for a duel to the death for a knight, paladin, or other person of honor there. Even justification for killing someone, if the one who gave insult is not of a station that allows a duel.

Yes, a peasant insulting a knight in my game could be killed by said knight or paladin without the gods batting an eye, depending on circumstances.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.
> 
> That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM.




Well yes, but given this group, that may be the preferred option.

The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem. There probably should have been some consequences much eariler in the campaign which would have given the players feedback that would let them know they were on an evil path.

In my experience, the biggest error a lot of DMs make when dealing with the alignment issue is simply to let a lot of stuff slide early until the PCs become so used to engaging in vile behaviour that they are surprised and angry when the DM finally decides to reign them in. If you meak clear _early_ what is evil, and what brings undesired consequences, then there is much less wailing and gnashing of teeth.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well yes, but given this group, that may be the preferred option.
> 
> The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem. There probably should have been some consequences much eariler in the campaign which would have given the players feedback that would let them know they were on an evil path.
> 
> In my experience, the biggest error a lot of DMs make when dealing with the alignment issue is simply to let a lot of stuff slide early until the PCs become so used to engaging in vile behaviour that they are surprised and angry when the DM finally decides to reign them in. If you meak clear _early_ what is evil, and what brings undesired consequences, then there is much less wailing and gnashing of teeth.




Or maybe the players simply have another view of what's good and what's evil. It's not as if the modern, western world agrees on what's good and what's evil in every case.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> "Good" in my game is not defined by our modern views, but by medieval/fantasy views. And an insult is enough justification for a duel to the death for a knight, paladin, or other person of honor there. Even justification for killing someone, if the one who gave insult is not of a station that allows a duel.




Not according to the game rules - "good" is pretty much defined in the PHB. And the defiinition pretty much excludes killing people because they called you a poopy head.

And even in the middle ages, it wasn't "good", and was clearly against the moral code of the dominant religion in Europe to kill peasants over insults. A lot of nobles rationalized their evil activities, but they were still engaged in evil, at least insofar as their purported religion was concerned.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Or maybe the players simply have another view of what's good and what's evil. It's not as if the modern, western world agrees on what's good and what's evil in every case.




Which is why the DM needs to _not_ let things slide early, so the PCs will know what is considered good and what is considered evil.

In the case at hand though, I'm not sure there has ever been a culture in which killing the chosen agent of the apparently nonevil king was ever considered anything but evil.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 1, 2008)

I think that the DM should better check with his or her players before deciding what is good and what's evil in his game. Trying to "teach" players how to act good or evil is often the first step to a collection of "well, before my old group broke up..." stories.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which is why the DM needs to _not_ let things slide early, so the PCs will know what is considered good and what is considered evil.
> 
> In the case at hand though, I'm not sure there has ever been a culture in which killing the chosen agent of the apparently nonevil king was ever considered anything but evil.




Unless, of course, said agent acted in a way that made the killing a question of honor.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Only unreasonable players would view it the way you have suggested, since it assumes all kinds of wacky mental contortions. The only truly reasonable interpretation a player could draw from the facts given is pretty much:




The players in the game we're discussing have more facts available to them.  Let's assume, for the sake of being nice, that they aren't unreasonable players.  So why did they do this?

That's where I was coming from.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Looks exactly like that was the argument you were making. Effectively, you seem to be excusing murderous mayhem as "not evil" on the ground that D&D is violent. You may want to clarify your argument if that's not what you intended.




Sure: There's no other way for the _players_ to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> "Good" in my game is not defined by our modern views, but by medieval/fantasy views. And an insult is enough justification for a duel to the death for a knight, paladin, or other person of honor there. Even justification for killing someone, if the one who gave insult is not of a station that allows a duel.
> 
> Yes, a peasant insulting a knight in my game could be killed by said knight or paladin without the gods batting an eye, depending on circumstances.





Honor duels are not what this group of PCs are doing. Honor Duels have rules usually they don't allow the entire party to whack on someone until they are dead and then treat the body the way this group did.

Also this was no commoner or peasant that these PCs killed it was an official of the King. 

There really is no way to paint this any other way than to say that the paladin ia not behaving like a paladin and should lose his paladin status and become a blackguard.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think that the DM should better check with his or her players before deciding what is good and what's evil in his game. Trying to "teach" players how to act good or evil is often the first step to a collection of "well, before my old group broke up..." stories.




This is always gets me. That the DM had better check with his players yada yada yada. How about the players check with the DM on how his world works. 

For example in your world it is okay for a knight to kill a peasant if he feels he has been insulted that is not haw things work in my world. DMs make their worlds different so I think players and DMs should talk about things like this before the game starts. But if a dM says this is an evil act in my world then the players should accept it. If they don't like it aand it is a deal breaker then they should find another game.

I will admit I am also tired of the attidue that the DM is the one who always has to bend to accomadate his players game styles, tastes and wants.  DMs do the most work they should at least be able to have some input into the fun as well as having fun themselves.

I think it should be a two way street. DMs should try and tailor the game to the players but players should also give the DM a break and let them have some fun as well. I as a DM would not have fun if I had a player playing a cleric of certain gods or a paladin like a thug.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 1, 2008)

This really shouldn't be about the morality of mouthy peasant-killing or the rather nice Antigonean feel of the conflict between the dead mother and the terse, metahuman agent of the State, it should be about how the OP can provide fun and appropriate future challenges to the PC's in light of what they done.

In RPG play, 'consequence' are just another word for 'challenges', unless, of course, your DM'ing style depends heavily on passing judgment on the players at your table.

(Mind you, I'm not endorsing _all_ manner of juvenile depravity that players delight to wallow in. Just some.)


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 1, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is always gets me. That the DM had better check with his players yada yada yada. How about the players check with the DM on how his world works.
> 
> For example in your world it is okay for a knight to kill a peasant if he feels he has been insulted that is not haw things work in my world. DMs make their worlds different so I think players and DMs should talk about things like this before the game starts. But if a dM says this is an evil act in my world then the players should accept it. If they don't like it aand it is a deal breaker then they should find another game.




In part this is true.  But DMs do need to remember that (I am borrowing from someone's sig here) so much as 5th level PCs are the equivalent of a flagless, paranoid, bloodthirsty *armor battalion*.  NPCs should in general be *very* polite to PCs, and while you might think that silent and secretive (and effectively bullying) towards PCs is cool, in practice it amounts to wandering up to the commander of said armor battalion with a TOW negligently over your shoulder and flipping him off.  *If* you have a whole ton of allies around (i.e. you are high level) you might get away with it.  For awhile.

It isn't "cool".  Unless you think deathwishes are cool.  Remember that in DnD, offense trumps defense, so people who are threatened will tend to strike first.  Be glad they so much as asked questions.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well yes, but given this group, that may be the preferred option.



What?!  That's absurd.  Preferred by whom, exactly?  The original poster (DM?)  The players?  Or _*you*_?


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem. There probably should have been some consequences much eariler in the campaign which would have given the players feedback that would let them know they were on an evil path.



No, that's not the real key at all.  The real key is talking to your players out of character and getting your expectations on the same page.  In game aligning amounts to nothing more than "you better toe the line, or you're going to be consistently punished for not doing things my way."  That's 100% the way to absolutely *SUCK* as a GM.  I guarantee it.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In my experience, the biggest error a lot of DMs make when dealing with the alignment issue is simply to let a lot of stuff slide early until the PCs become so used to engaging in vile behaviour that they are surprised and angry when the DM finally decides to reign them in. If you meak clear _early_ what is evil, and what brings undesired consequences, then there is much less wailing and gnashing of teeth.



Maybe you should make a list of acceptable and unacceptable actions in game.  Surely, your players won't want to do anything that's not on your list.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 1, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think it should be a two way street. DMs should try and tailor the game to the players but players should also give the DM a break and let them have some fun as well. I as a DM would not have fun if I had a player playing a cleric of certain gods or a paladin like a thug.




There should be communication about play style.  I suspect that there was little, if any, to start off with, though, in the example given, which is where the predicament is coming from, compounded with errors in judgement on both sides of the screen (bringing greatswords to a fistfight, assuming PCs will just hand over a child against the prevailing wishes of the mother, etc).

Brad


----------



## Mallus (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem.



But isn't excusing murderous mayhem what the alignment system was originally for???


----------



## Mallus (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> NPCs should in general be *very* polite to PCs...



"Always remember to be polite to the man-tank" is handy advice...


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, there are certainly people like that. No one is disputing that fact. Normally, however, we call those who kill people in response to an insult "evil". The fact that they are knights or nobles doesn't make their callous murdering ways any less evil.



Calling someone out in a duel was NOT considered evil, and until fairly recently, people killed in duels were either morons for taking on someone above their skill level, or glamorized/idolized by the general public.

There were insults that could be said that couldn't be borne, including disparations against one's linage, bride/wife/betrothed, social standing, personal habits, and honor/bravery.

If you walked up to a knight and accussed him of mating with the corpses of dead men and having bad breath from drinking the seed of farm horses with breakfast, he'd challenge you to a duel on the spot, IF he didn't just knock your head off.

Guess who is evil in that situation?

You. Not him for defending personal and family honor, but you, for disparaging him.

You need to seriously take a good look at what was considered evil and good back in the day, and maybe even go back over history again. Focus on the reasons and outcomes and public perceptions of duels.

Oh, by the way, how did you pen issue ever pan out?


----------



## Ydars (Apr 1, 2008)

Hence the old chinese saying "talk softly but carry a big stick". Ahem.

Seriously, gaming is a consensus pastime and the DM always has to mold his vision to one that is pleasing and engaging to the players.

You just need to deal with this out of game, and try and set up some common expectations and all should be well.

Having said this, NO DM should be forced to run games where the PCs behaviour is so bad that he feels uncomfortable. If the players want to indulge in true depravity then I say, "Go DM yourself."

I also like the comments made on this thread about Medieval belief systems. I know where the poster is coming from, but only a robber-knight or a trail-bastion (outlaw) would take "honor" to this extreme with peasants (at least in England). With equals, fine, but only the Samurai treated peasents with such distain and even then, only in certain periods of Japanese history.

Nevertheless, I used to love trying to explore the sensibilities of another age and if you can find gamers who also like this, it can be very engaging indeed. Problem is, my current group have no interest in this at all.

Still; if it works for you and your players.......................go for it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, said agent acted in a way that made the killing a question of honor.




Even if the agent did that. I can't think of any western society in which killing the agent of the ruler was ever considered a valid nonevil response in the circumstances described, even if they insulted someone. And in the case presented, it is hard to see an "honor" question in the situation. Face it, the PCs in question are simply murderous thugs.

And I can't think of any western society in which the prevailing religion held that killing to preserve one's honor was a valid response under the religious codes prevailing at the time. As a practical matter, maybe, but that doesn't make the action "good", even by the standards of the time.


----------



## Ydars (Apr 1, 2008)

Warlord Ralts; it depends on the country and the period.

If you tried to fight a duel with a serf in England for much of the Medieval period, everyone would have thought you a knave and a bully, not matter what the peasant had done. Later on, when weapons training became more common place, you might have got knocked on your backside attacking a peasent, because some were highly skilled, especially with quarterstaves and so duels of the type you describe became common.

I certainly agree that going out of your way to insult a knight would have been VERY stupid in any country at any time in history. 

But this is NOT what we are talking about. The first instance described in this thread involves the PC wizard taunting a man just for not particularly engaging with the party. Then the party turned a brawl into a deadly fight.

THEY; the PCs, have behaved WITHOUT any honor of any kind, leaving aside the good/evil problem. To attack someone you know you can defeat, for no other reason than to demonstrate your power, is to lack any concept of honor.

And STORM RAVEN is right; to attack an agent of the King is to attack the King himself. Only powerful nobles or those with whom the King could not risk war would even think of such a thing.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 1, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Warlord Ralts; it depends on the country and the period.
> 
> If you tried to fight a duel with a serf in England for much of the Medieval period, everyone would have thought you a knave and a bully, not matter what the peasant had done. Later on, when weapons training became more common place, you might have got knocked on your backside attacking a peasent, because some were highly skilled, especially with quarterstaves and so duels of the type you describe became common.



In a magical/psionic society, attacking random people could prove downright deadly too. That peasant may very well crush the knight's brain and leave it oozing out of his ears.



> I certainly agree that going out of your way to insult a knight would have been VERY stupid in any country at any time in history.
> 
> But this is NOT what we are talking about. The first instance described in this thread involves the PC wizard taunting a man just for not particularly engaging with the party. Then the party turned a brawl into a deadly fight.



Heh, they call that "murder" and paladins and clerics of good gods may find themselves stripped completely of all powers.


> THEY; the PCs, have behaved WITHOUT any honor of any kind, leaving aside the good/evil problem. To attack someone you know you can defeat, for no other reason than to demonstrate your power, is to lack any concept of honor.



Oh, completely.




> And STORM RAVEN is right; to attack an agent of the King is to attack the King himself. Only powerful nobles or those with whom the King could not risk war would even think of such a thing.




Very true. Like the old mantra goes: "An attack upon the King's Men is an assault upon the King himself."


But, to blanketly label anyone who responds to a duel challenge, regardless of apparent skill level or social standing, as evil, is just plain wrong.

Most serfs/peasants would NEVER say the kinds of duel provoking statements that I used for an example, and one who did obviously has a death wish or wants to be beaten within an inch of his life and spend some time in the stocks.

But in the original example, the PC's are definitely heading down the evil tracks on a runaway freight train.


----------



## Ydars (Apr 1, 2008)

Warlord Ralt; Man you are not wrong there! They are inside the Darth Vader suit with the headpiece on the way dowwwwwwwnnn.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Ydars said:
			
		

> Hence the old chinese saying "talk softly but carry a big stick".



Huh.  I never knew Teddy Roosevelt was Chinese.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 1, 2008)

OK, first thing first, the OP has admitting he is not strict with alignments (first sentence of his post) but let's take a look at a few things:

Now, the first fight could have been blown off/ignored due to whatever reasons. The PC's were too important/powerful to worry about a couple of mooks, so we'll just ignore it. All it does is show that the PC's would rather die than back down. So, let's get it on.



> Vincent is an "arbitor". "Arbitors" are personal agents of the king whom have undergone 'special treatment' to enhance their abilities. Basically he is powerful. Arbitors also answer ONLY to the king and have right to kill (think old samurai). He is cold, short with words, and acts like his word is law (mainly because it is).



OK, we're dealing with more than a knight, we are dealing with an extension of the King's will, the force of the crown.



> The PCs witness a birth of two children. The mother dies during the birthing, and the cleric communes with dead to ask her about what she wants done with the children. He discovers that the father of the children is Vincent, and that she wants to keep it a secret from him.
> She says, "Don't let Vincent find out". Vincent finds out. He comes to collect one of the children. He says, "I will take the boy." The PCs try to talk him out of it and question his motives, but he doesn't see the need to explain himself to them. "I will take the boy" He repeats.



Thus, it is law, merely because his word is law, his words are the King's words. Uh-oh...



> PCs attack and kill Vincent in battle. Not only do they do that, but the Paladin severs his head quickly after the battle. Then they burn the body.



OK, while an evil "gray area" due to the fact that they are preventing the last wishes of the mother from being negated, this was not a lawful action. It may or may not have been good, depending on what kind of motives Vincent had.

But, an argument could be made that once Vincent found out, the mother's request was broken.



> Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son. Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.
> 
> QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?



Evil, maybe.
Unlawful: Absolutely.

That spells trouble for the Paladin.




> Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade, as they are clearly acting on their own impulses, and not on goodness or law.
> 
> The town is afraid of them and nobody says anything as they kill the Arbitor but they know the seriousness of the situation and remain quiet. Except one. He yells, "The king will hear about this" and stalks off heading to Thoa (where the king is). If the king DOES hear about this they will be in very big trouble, and will be banished if they are lucky.



If they kill this peasant, then they are doing so to cover what happened, making the murder of the peasant AND the murder of Vincent into an evil act. (They obviously knew it was wrong, which is why they are trying to cover up their misdeeds)



> Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning. He is merely amused by the situation. He has been watching them and knows everything about their past and present. He wishes to help them. He tells them that he had come to offer them positions as Arbitors. They know that the training will significantly strengthen their characters, and they will be given land, money and anything they need.
> 
> The problem is a simple townsman is headed to tell the king that they have killed Vincent. If they 'stop' this townsman their problem is solved and the reward will be theirs.
> 
> Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?



Let them make their own bed. If they kill the peasant, strip the paladin of his paladin powers (maybe secretly replace them with Blackguard powers slowly but surely) and maybe have the cleric lose access to some of his spells, or his healing not work on the party and himself, as a sign of disfavor from his God.



> Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?



Anything they do, besides try to persuade the peasant with non-threatening words, will be covering up their crime, and even persuasion is covering up their crime.

From the picture you've painted us, they'll just kill him. Once they do that, they may recieve their reward, but they'll be raubitters and black knights. Lead them into evil, and have Hades open the door and guide the way.

If done right, this could lead into an evil coup against the king.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Calling someone out in a duel was NOT considered evil, and until fairly recently, people killed in duels were either morons for taking on someone above their skill level, or glamorized/idolized by the general public.




I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired. Almost every society condemned duels under almost all of these circumstances - and tightly controlled when those duels that were allowed were conducted. Even under Scandanavian pre-Christian culture when dueling was a way to gain wealth, those who engaged in duels were generally considered to be engaged in wrongdoing.



> _There were insults that could be said that couldn't be borne, including disparations against one's linage, bride/wife/betrothed, social standing, personal habits, and honor/bravery.
> 
> If you walked up to a knight and accussed him of mating with the corpses of dead men and having bad breath from drinking the seed of farm horses with breakfast, he'd challenge you to a duel on the spot, IF he didn't just knock your head off.
> 
> ...




Nope. Under the religious codes of the dominant religion in Europe at the time, he's evil. You can contort all you want, but it doesn't change this. Just because something may be accepted as a practical matter because of the power of those doing it does not mean that it is considered moral to do so. In point of fact, there are many writings throughout the historical period roundly condemning on moral grounds things like duels, killing for honor's sake, and all sort of other brutal activities. There are almost none defending them.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired.



Main Entry: iro·ny   
Pronunciation: \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\ 
Function: noun 
Inflected Form(s): plural iro·nies 
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirōnia, from eirōn dissembler 
Date: 1502 
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony
2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
*3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result* (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony


Definition 3a (1), example: Storm Raven's knowledge of history is sadly lacking.  The normal or expected result is that he says, oh, OK, and goes and does some research.  The ironic result is that he says Warlord Ralts' knowledge of history is sadly lacking, when in this case Warlord Ralts is actually 100% correct.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> In part this is true.  But DMs do need to remember that (I am borrowing from someone's sig here) so much as 5th level PCs are the equivalent of a flagless, paranoid, bloodthirsty *armor battalion*.  NPCs should in general be *very* polite to PCs, and while you might think that silent and secretive (and effectively bullying) towards PCs is cool, in practice it amounts to wandering up to the commander of said armor battalion with a TOW negligently over your shoulder and flipping him off.  *If* you have a whole ton of allies around (i.e. you are high level) you might get away with it.  For awhile.
> 
> It isn't "cool".  Unless you think deathwishes are cool.  Remember that in DnD, offense trumps defense, so people who are threatened will tend to strike first.  Be glad they so much as asked questions.




Yeah, because the nonevil response to someone flipping you off is to kill them.

Seriously, killing someone who annoys or insults you because you are powerful enough to get away with it is pretty much a textbook definition of "evil" as described in the game books, and through most of western morality. You may want to play a "might makes right" kind of game, but that doesn't mean that you aren't evil.

The alignment system is supposed to proviede a check on the murderous rampages of the players, to prevent them from wantonly killing peasants, city watchmen, and merchants. Saying "those merchants better be polite because we'll kill them otherwise" basically tags the PCs as being on the "evil" end of that spectrum, with all the attendant negative consequences such a choice might incur.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Definition 3a (1), example: Storm Raven's knowledge of history is sadly lacking.  The normal or expected result is that he says, oh, OK, and goes and does some research.  The ironic result is that he says Warlord Ralts' knowledge of history is sadly lacking, when in this case Warlord Ralts is actually 100% correct.




No, he's actually wrong. He's correct that dueling was common. He's incorrect that dueling and other brutal activities were ever considered moral or good. One only has to look at the writings left to us by the wide variety of religious leaders condemning dueling, killing peasants, and other nasty behavior to figure this out. It is common for people to think "hey, many knights were murderous thugs, so that must have been considered "good" in their day". The problem is, this is completely wrong. Many knights _were_ murderous thugs. They were roundly criticized as being evil, vile, and sinners as a result.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired. Almost every society condemned duels under almost all of these circumstances - and tightly controlled when those duels that were allowed were conducted. Even under Scandanavian pre-Christian culture when dueling was a way to gain wealth, those who engaged in duels were generally considered to be engaged in wrongdoing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Under the religious codes of the dominant religion in Europe at the time, he's evil. You can contort all you want, but it doesn't change this. Just because something may be accepted as a practical matter because of the power of those doing it does not mean that it is considered moral to do so. In point of fact, there are many writings throughout the historical period roundly condemning on moral grounds things like duels, killing for honor's sake, and all sort of other brutal activities. There are almost none defending them.



Nicely done.

Despite the legends of duels fought, despite the high frequency of duels, apparently there are almost none defending them?

OK then....



> Feuds in the medieval period occurred when people attempted to settle disputes and exact revenge for insults through "private vengeance," rather than by going to the authorities and entrudting them to settle the matter.  Judicial duels, on the other hand,  were official acts, during which both parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) fought their grievances out on the battle field with swords in front of a judge.  At times, a ruling prince and witnesses would also be present.  In either of these cases, whether it was a feud or a judicial duel, the winner, or victor, was considered to have been in the right.




Looks like Judicial Duels were OK... But that isn't quite what you were saying, is it? How about we look deeper?



> Although it cannot be said that duels sprang from a single cause, Billacois does assert that "it was a short step from the revelation of bravery in a tournament to the affirmation of honour through the duel (Billacois, 16)."  However, whereas tournaments were often officially organized by the Court, duels never took place without a personal a cause.






> As Frevert states, "Duels were duels of honor in which the participants engaged for the purpose of demonstrating their sense of honor rather than for the purpose of achieving a definite result.  It mattered not who was the fastest on the draw, or who dealt the most powerful blows; all that counted was the fact that two opponents braved a possibly fatal encounter, thus demonstrating that they placed greater value upon their "honour" than upon their lives."






> Most societies did not condemn dueling, and the victor of a duel was regarded not as a murderer but as a hero, his social status often increased.






> Dueling is the tie of society. . . . No virtue . . . proved half so instrumental in the civilizing of mankind.
> 
> Bernard Mandeville[1]
> Physician Philosopher (1670-1733)






> After the collapse of Rome, the use of court-supervised judicial duels spread throughout Europe, gradually replacing trial by ordeal and simple ambush as means of settling disputes. Duels were preferable to open warfare between nobles or low ambush.




Shall we keep going, or do you withdraw your spurious and rashly stated claim?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, he's actually wrong. He's correct that dueling was common. He's incorrect that dueling and other brutal activities were ever considered moral or good. One only has to look at the writings left to us by the wide variety of *religious leaders* condemning dueling, killing peasants, and other nasty behavior to figure this out. It is common for people to think "hey, many knights were murderous thugs, so that must have been considered "good" in their day". The problem is, this is completely wrong. Many knights _were_ murderous thugs. They were roundly criticized as being evil, vile, and sinners as a result.



That's odd, I found plenty of writings by the Catholic Church proclaiming that God strengthens the winners, and that Trial By Combat or Dueling was in fact endorsed by the church.

I suggest you reread wherever you read your information. I suggest many of the easily available college textbooks available from Amazon (some of them even resales, and thus much cheaper) as you are in error across the board.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> What?!  That's absurd.  Preferred by whom, exactly?  The original poster (DM?)  The players?  Or _*you*_?




preferred by a Dm who is dismayed that his players seem to want to be murderous thugs and still be considered "good".



> _No, that's not the real key at all.  The real key is talking to your players out of character and getting your expectations on the same page.  In game aligning amounts to nothing more than "you better toe the line, or you're going to be consistently punished for not doing things my way."  That's 100% the way to absolutely *SUCK* as a GM.  I guarantee it._




No, in game consequences, as long as they make sense, are the best way to go. They reinforce that the actions of the PCs have consequences, and that the players are free to choose one option or another, so long as they are prepared to live with the result.



> _Maybe you should make a list of acceptable and unacceptable actions in game.  Surely, your players won't want to do anything that's not on your list._




Players in my games are free to choose any option they want, so long as they are prepared to deal with the potential fallout that results. Turning to evil has consequences, and those are made pretty clear from the outset, with plenty of options for turning away from that path. Of course, being aligned with good often means not being able to do the expedient thing, but no one ever said being "good" was always the easy option.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> The players in the game we're discussing have more facts available to them.  Let's assume, for the sake of being nice, that they aren't unreasonable players.  So why did they do this?




But the evidence we have is that they are _not_ reasonable players - they turned a fistfight into a murder spree after all.



> _Sure: There's no other way for the players to reliably resolve conflicts without resorting to violence._




So, "expedience" = "good"?

And I'd dispute that there are no other ways to reliably resolve conflicts. There are lots of other ways to resolve conflicts than violence and murder. Pretty much the same options you have in th real world in point of fact.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> That's odd, I found plenty of writings by the Catholic Church proclaiming that God strengthens the winners, and that Trial By Combat or Dueling was in fact endorsed by the church.




Trial by combat somethimes, but dueling for honor sake pretty much never. In fact, one of the first things missionaries usually did when they set about converting an area was to try to get practices like honor dueling condemned as wrong. And plenty of ecclesiastical texts are out there condemning the practice, with only a handful endorsing it, and those only endorsing it under controlled situations.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yeah, because the nonevil response to someone flipping you off is to kill them.
> 
> Seriously, killing someone who annoys or insults you because you are powerful enough to get away with it is pretty much a textbook definition of "evil" as described in the game books, and through most of western morality. You may want to play a "might makes right" kind of game, but that doesn't mean that you aren't evil.
> 
> The alignment system is supposed to proviede a check on the murderous rampages of the players, to prevent them from wantonly killing peasants, city watchmen, and merchants. Saying "those merchants better be polite because we'll kill them otherwise" basically tags the PCs as being on the "evil" end of that spectrum, with all the attendant negative consequences such a choice might incur.




Well, flipping someone powerful off is stupid unless you have the power to back it up.  It is also a threatening act: because it is stupid unless you are strong, it implies strength, and as such is a direct threat.  Direct threats in DnD, because of the dominance of offense, should be met with submission or attack.  It is unfortunate for the arbitrator that his bluff got called.

Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced?  We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws.  Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified.

Whether or not the DM intended it as such, the arbitrator picked a fight he couldn't win.  I weep for him.  Next time, try answering the party's questions unless you *are* strong enough to laugh at them.  It is the sane and reasonable thing to do, unless your request of the party isn't reasonable...


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Trial by combat somethimes, but dueling for honor sake pretty much never. In fact, one of the first things missionaries usually did when they set about converting an area was to try to get practices like honor dueling condemned as wrong. And plenty of ecclesiastical texts are out there condemning the practice, with only a handful endorsing it, and those only endorsing it under controlled situations.



If you read your texts fully, there was only one reason that the church condemned dueling, and they were not so much condemning dueling as they were condemning what the duel was about.

Honor was seen as pride, which is a deadly sin, and to do away with the concept of personal honor, the church had to get rid of dueling, which honor duels were a way to increase one's honor and protect it. Once dueling was gotten rid of, it made stripping honor itself out of the society that much easier.

The church also condemned dueling by placing priests above the duel, making it so that they could not be challenged no matter what they spoke.

This increased the power of the church politically, and that is the ONLY reason they forbade the practice. Not out of horror of the duel, but rather by besmirching it and condemning it they could then remove personal honor (pride) from the society and make it more easily malleable by the church.

Once again: Do your research.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Trial by combat somethimes, but dueling for honor sake pretty much never. In fact, one of the first things missionaries usually did when they set about converting an area was to try to get practices like honor dueling condemned as wrong. And plenty of ecclesiastical texts are out there condemning the practice, with only a handful endorsing it, and those only endorsing it under controlled situations.



That catholic church wasn't the only source of "this is good and lawful" after all.  Pretty much every medieval, Rennaisance (and later) country had a _code duello_ which expressed in legal terms exactly how, when and why a duel could be fought.

Heck, even as late as 1800s in America, duels were still being fought.  Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, anyone?  Guess what; the murder charges against Aaron Burr were dismissed, and that was at the very end of the socially acceptable duel period.

How about in the Old West?  Was Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday considered a murderer?  Was Wild Bill Hickok punished for murder because he gunned down Davis Tutt in the street?  Oh... no, he was actually considered a hero, as were Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.

Whoops.  Storm Raven fails his Knowledge (history) check with a natural 1.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Huh.  I never knew Teddy Roosevelt was Chinese.




He was fond of the West African proverb, but not Chinese.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> If you read your texts fully, there was only one reason that the church condemned dueling, and they were not so much condemning dueling as they were condemning what the duel was about.




No, there was plenty of condemnation of the practice in and of itself.



> _Once again: Do your research._




Oh I have. For example:



> Trial by combat were common in the Holy Roman Empire from the 11th to the 15th centuries. Otto the Great in 967 expressly sanctioned the practice of Germanic tribal law even if it did not figure in the more "imperial" Roman law. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 deprecated judicial duels, and Pope Honorius III in 1216 asked the Teutonic order to cease its imposition of judicial duels on their newly converted subjects in Livonia. For the following three centuries, there was latent tension between the traditional regional laws and Roman law.
> 
> The Kleines Kaiserrecht, anonymous legal code of ca. 1300, prohibits judicial duels altogether, stating that the emperor had come to this decision on seeing that too many innocent men were convicted by the practice just for being physically weak.




As you can see, the practice was regularly condemned by the Church in the Germanic countries where the practice was culturally rooted, and usually disliked by the rulers, and often formally prohibited. It wasn't until William the Conquerer introduced it in a limited way that it was acceptable in any form in England, and then only in a limited sense that was entirely controlled by the crown. Private duels were forbidden by English law even at this point, even though they were carried out in secret, with only judicial duels being sanctioned, and then only for a handful of issues.

I've done my research. Plenty of it. It doesn't match what you are claiming at all. It was routinely condemned, and most, if not all of the moral writers on the subject (i.e. not Popes or Kings) condemned the practice.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> In part this is true.  But DMs do need to remember that (I am borrowing from someone's sig here) so much as 5th level PCs are the equivalent of a flagless, paranoid, bloodthirsty *armor battalion*.  NPCs should in general be *very* polite to PCs, and while you might think that silent and secretive (and effectively bullying) towards PCs is cool, in practice it amounts to wandering up to the commander of said armor battalion with a TOW negligently over your shoulder and flipping him off.  *If* you have a whole ton of allies around (i.e. you are high level) you might get away with it.  For awhile.
> 
> It isn't "cool".  Unless you think deathwishes are cool.  Remember that in DnD, offense trumps defense, so people who are threatened will tend to strike first.  Be glad they so much as asked questions.




It is true that peasants would keep a low profile wirh someone who can take their head off with a single blow.  But that does not mean that there should be no consquence for a PC that does this. 

It really depends on how the world is built. In my world a PC who killed a peasant for insulting him would be in big trouble. He would have the clerics of St Cuthbert after him for breaking the law and committing murder. He would have the clerics after of Herineous after him for breaking the laws of honor duels. 

In my world adventurers don't get to behave like thugs and face no consquences. I don't care how powerful they are I practice the Qui Gonn Jinn rule of there is always a bigger fish.

As I said before DMs need to make it clear from the start of the game how things work in the world.

 I played in a game that had honor duels if someone insulted you, you could call them out but they had the right to hire a sellsword to duel for them. 

I have played in games where peasants had no rights and could be slayed, raped, robbed by any knight but I have also played in games where no knight would sully himself by  killing a peasant for insulting him flog him sure but kill no because there was no honor in taking the life of a person who stood no chance against you.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 1, 2008)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Very true. Like the old mantra goes: "An attack upon the King's Men is an assault upon the King himself."
> 
> But, to blanketly label anyone who responds to a duel challenge, regardless of apparent skill level or social standing, as evil, is just plain wrong.




Unless they gang up on the guy. Then they are honorless curs as well.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Heck, even as late as 1800s in America, duels were still being fought.  Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, anyone?  Guess what; the murder charges against Aaron Burr were dismissed, and that was at the very end of the socially acceptable duel period.




Burr's political career was destroyed by the illegal duel, and he was considered an outcast from society after the duel. yeah, that was considered "good" and "right" at the time.



> _How about in the Old West?  Was Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday considered a murderer?  Was Wild Bill Hickok punished for murder because he gunned down Davis Tutt in the street?  Oh... no, he was actually considered a hero, as were Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday._




Hmm, Hickock claimed self-defense, after he was arrested and tried for manslaughter. It doesn't sound like his actions were considered particularly good at the time. He was _only_ acquited because the jury bought the argument that Tutt had acted first. Otherwise, he likely would have been convicted, as many other gunslingers of the era were. Earp and Holliday acted under the authority of law, even if they may have abused that authority, and many condemned them at the time, and they were actually charged with murder, and although the charges weren't sustained the judge roundly criticized them. Public opinion was so against them at the time, that after their vendetta ride Earp and Holliday had to uproot and leave the Arizona Territory. That doesn't sound like they were lauded as heroes (and they weren't, until much later when Earp got to publicize his accounts of the activities, after most of his opponents were dead).

Most gunfights at the time involved lawmen (like the Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight), resulted in muder charges (like the Gunfight in Hide Park), and many times the only reason no one was prosecuted was poor communications (it was still possible to go to the next territory and vanish from sight). Most gunfighters became famous much later, when their stories were romanticised, but at the time, most people (and most newspaper accounts) seem to have painted them as thugs and criminals.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Well, flipping someone powerful off is stupid unless you have the power to back it up.  It is also a threatening act: because it is stupid unless you are strong, it implies strength, and as such is a direct threat.  Direct threats in DnD, because of the dominance of offense, should be met with submission or attack.  It is unfortunate for the arbitrator that his bluff got called.




I had figured that "might makes right" had pretty much been discarded as a moral guide. I guess I was wrong. You see, what keeps people who are more powerful than others from killing and running rampant is generally morality - those who are "good" don't engage in wanton acts of murder and destruction in response to insults and uncivility. Those who are "evil" often do.

No one is saying that the PCs are not powerful. No one is saying that they could not kill peasants that annoyed them or burn villages to the ground in response to an insult. The only thing that is being said it that, in D&D terms, they would be evil if they did so.



> _Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced?  We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws.  Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified._




Given that the paladin in question is working for the same king as the arbiter, it seems like there really isn't an "unjust law" question here. Certainly there isn't any justification for killing the guy.



> _Whether or not the DM intended it as such, the arbitrator picked a fight he couldn't win.  I weep for him.  Next time, try answering the party's questions unless you *are* strong enough to laugh at them.  It is the sane and reasonable thing to do, unless your request of the party isn't reasonable..._




Because it isn't "evil" to kill those who refuse to answer your questions. Umm, yeah.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Well, flipping someone powerful off is stupid unless you have the power to back it up.  It is also a threatening act: because it is stupid unless you are strong, it implies strength, and as such is a direct threat.  Direct threats in DnD, because of the dominance of offense, should be met with submission or attack.  It is unfortunate for the arbitrator that his bluff got called.
> 
> Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced?  We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws.  Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified.
> 
> Whether or not the DM intended it as such, the arbitrator picked a fight he couldn't win.  I weep for him.  Next time, try answering the party's questions unless you *are* strong enough to laugh at them.  It is the sane and reasonable thing to do, unless your request of the party isn't reasonable...




There are so  many ways this party of supposed good people could have handled this. One way is to go to the King and ask him to make the decision. Travel with the father and the baby back to the King.

The reason I don't think this falls under a good act is because of how they did it. If the guy left them no choice but to fight then they should of after they killed him taken his body and the children to the King's court. And explained what had happened. But they went about things hopfullly to hide what they have done. If they end up going after the pesant who saw them and kill him then there intent is not a noble one to protect the baby. The paladin is no paladin he is murderous thug killing a witness for the sole purpose of protecting himself from the consquences of his actions. 

The mother did not want this man to have the children but did she warn the PCs that the man was evil and the children would be in danger from him? For all we know the mother was mad at Vincent and wanted to punish him. 

There is a big difference in protecting a baby from an evil cultist father who intends on killing the child in his god's name and a dead mother not wanting her babies raised by a  man  she may not have liked.

If I plaed in that game I would have gathered more information on why the mother didn't want him to know about the babies.

And I disagree that you have to answer the PCs questions. It really depends who the NPC is  I would think that a person who is the law of the land and speaks for the king would feel no obligation to answer some non official PCs questions. 

his status should be enough to protect him and if it is not then his death won't go unpunished by the law.


----------



## hamishspence (Apr 1, 2008)

*Legality of Duelling*

Duels have been illegal for a long time. Plenty of historical fiction stresses this: people duelling then having to flee the country. on the other hand, they may have gone through phases: legal and illegal.

No duel begins 4 to one. makes it murder, not "self defence" 

I did not see any actual rudeness. Simply insisting " i wil take the boy" isn't an insult. 

Unless your players had evidence that the arbitor was breaking the law, not reasonable to attack them: no justification.

If paladin had cast Detect evil, might have had right to complain, but some DMs rule that an Evil person can be in good standing with the law, and you need evidence of wrongdoing to justify attacking even an evil NPC.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Burr's political career was destroyed by the illegal duel, and he was considered an outcast from society after the duel. yeah, that was considered "good" and "right" at the time.



Psst!  I already said that that was the very end of the socially accepted dueling period.  The reason they did it was because there was a long tradition of it being considered the "right" thing to do.

And you can't exactly say that what he did was illegal if the courts dismissed the charges against him, can you?


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Hmm, Hickock claimed self-defense, after he was arrested and tried for manslaughter. It doesn't sound like his actions were considered particularly good at the time. He was _only_ acquited because the jury bought the argument that Tutt had acted first. Otherwise, he likely would have been convicted, as many other gunslingers of the era were. Earp and Holliday acted under the authority of law, even if they may have abused that authority, and many condemned them at the time, and they were actually charged with murder, and although the charges weren't sustained the judge roundly criticized them. Public opinion was so against them at the time, that after their vendetta ride Earp and Holliday had to uproot and leave the Arizona Territory. That doesn't sound like they were lauded as heroes (and they weren't, until much later when Earp got to publicize his accounts of the activities, after most of his opponents were dead).



No, you're inputting your own bias in there.  I've read plenty of sources on this, and they all seem to indicate that they were acquitted or had their charges dismissed because the juries viewed their acts as acceptable.  You're really straining to get around that basic fact which runs through the majority of historical duels; they were seen by society as acceptable, which is why they were engaged in.  They really only caused problems 1) when someone didn't follow the rules for proper dueling, which could lead to murder charges, or 2) when society started turning against dueling as an acceptable practice.

Wyatt Earp was arrested because there were competing claims about how exactly the gunfight had been handled.  When unbiased testimony came forward and showed that the complaints about Earp's actions were likely made by witnesses biased against him, the charges were dropped.  Judge Spicer didn't criticise Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday for their role in the gunfight at the OK Corrall, he criticized Virgil Earp for his temporary deputizing of Wyatt and Holliday.  You also are apparently now conflating reaction to the OK Corrall and reaction to the Vendetta ride, which were too different things altogether.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Most gunfights at the time involved lawmen (like the Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight), resulted in muder charges (like the Gunfight in Hide Park), and many times the only reason no one was prosecuted was poor communications (it was still possible to go to the next territory and vanish from sight).



While that may have been true in some cases, many times they actually were charged and even brought to trial, and then acquitted or had the charges dismissed because _their actions were considered acceptable in that society at that time._  You also very noticably forget to mention plenty of other famous duels; Samuel Martin challenged John Wilkes to to a duel in the House of Commons no less.  Prince Frederick, Duke of York fought a highly publicized duel with Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Lennox that was reported in the Times (granted, no one was killed in that case.)  Heck, Andrew Jackson went on to be elected President of the USA after killing an opponent in a duel.

You're really having to twist things to say that dueling was viewed as evil and lawless by society.  That simply is not the case and the only way you can come to that conclusion is by ignoring tons and tons of evidence.


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 1, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced?



You mean, if I had (accidental) custody of a child, and the random stranger mother told me not to give him to the police officer and wouldn't give a reason, would I turn him over to said police officer? Of course I would turn him over. Sheesh.



> We are also running into whether paladins are obliged to follow unjust laws.  Sure, an arbitrator's word may be law, but paladins aren't required to obey evil laws... and a law that can't justify itself isn't itself justified.



No, we're not, as there is no evidence of "unjust laws" given in this thread.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I had figured that "might makes right" had pretty much been discarded as a moral guide.



Not in D&D.



> I guess I was wrong.



You were.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Not in D&D.




Really? Could you show how the alignment guidelines lead one to that conclusion?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Really? Could you show how the alignment guidelines lead one to that conclusion?



The alignment guidelines didn't lead me to that conclusion. Observing people playing the game for the past 23 years did. Not to mention the fact that there are far more rules in D&D for perpetrating violent conflicts --and improving yourself by doing so--  than exploring the moral implications of said violent confilcts (that would be 'a lot' vs. 'effectively none'). 

And alignment? It's D&D equivalent of a team jersey. People wearing the same color are your teammates. People with the opposing teams colors are okay to tackle. Or smite. Or flamestrike. I've never found alignment to be the least bit convincing as an ethical framework.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Psst!  I already said that that was the very end of the socially accepted dueling period.  The reason they did it was because there was a long tradition of it being considered the "right" thing to do.[/i]




And it wasn't socially acceptable. Burr was afterwards ostracized and his political and public career was finished. How is that congruent with dueling being "socially acceptable".



> _And you can't exactly say that what he did was illegal if the courts dismissed the charges against him, can you?_




But they didn't dismiss the charges because dueling was okay, they dismissed them for other reasons. Here's the thing - the famous dules are often famous because they were the exception - someone or another got away with it and later told their story. It is no mistake that most of the duels featured in history also featured glory hounds who publicized their adventures. The duels involving people who were tried for murder, convicted, and hanged are not nearly as well known, because the participants died before they could become famous. If you go through the court records of the era, you find that the vast majority of purported duels resulted in murder or manslaughter convictions (in point of fact, one of the classic definititions of manslaughter is "killing someone in mutual combat").



> _No, you're inputting your own bias in there.  I've read plenty of sources on this, and they all seem to indicate that they were acquitted or had their charges dismissed because the juries viewed their acts as acceptable.  You're really straining to get around that basic fact which runs through the majority of historical duels; they were seen by society as acceptable, which is why they were engaged in.  They really only caused problems 1) when someone didn't follow the rules for proper dueling, which could lead to murder charges, or 2) when society started turning against dueling as an acceptable practice._




Society as a whole has never really accepted duels as proper. In the U.S. being acquitted for killing someone in a duel was the exception, not the rule, and usually happened when the perpetrator was a law officer or came up with some _other_ defense besides "we were dueling".



> _Wyatt Earp was arrested because there were competing claims about how exactly the gunfight had been handled.  When unbiased testimony came forward and showed that the complaints about Earp's actions were likely made by witnesses biased against him, the charges were dropped.  Judge Spicer didn't criticise Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday for their role in the gunfight at the OK Corrall, he criticized Virgil Earp for his temporary deputizing of Wyatt and Holliday.  You also are apparently now conflating reaction to the OK Corrall and reaction to the Vendetta ride, which were too different things altogether._




The public outcry against the OK Corral gunfight led to the attack on Virgil, which led to the vendetta ride, which led to the Earp's fleeing the territory. The Earps were heroes for a brief period, until the funerals of those killed in the OK Corral, and after that, they were widely condemned.



> _While that may have been true in some cases, many times they actually were charged and even brought to trial, and then acquitted or had the charges dismissed because their actions were considered acceptable in that society at that time.  You also very noticably forget to mention plenty of other famous duels; Samuel Martin challenged John Wilkes to to a duel in the House of Commons no less.  Prince Frederick, Duke of York fought a highly publicized duel with Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Lennox that was reported in the Times (granted, no one was killed in that case.)  Heck, Andrew Jackson went on to be elected President of the USA after killing an opponent in a duel.
> 
> You're really having to twist things to say that dueling was viewed as evil and lawless by society.  That simply is not the case and the only way you can come to that conclusion is by ignoring tons and tons of evidence._




Or by actually looking at court cases concerning duels. And the history of the law and how it treated duelists: http://www.law.gwu.edu/Burns/rarebooks/exhibits/duel_opposition.htm


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 1, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The alignment guidelines didn't lead me to that conclusion.




Maybe one should use it as more than a team jersey then. Perhaps, as the 3e rules suggest, alignment should reflect actions, rather than simply being a label stuck on the character sheet. If a character behaves in an evil manner, then their alignment should reflect that, regardless of whether the PC wants his character to be evil or not. In other words, how you behave determines your status.



> _Observing people playing the game for the past 23 years did. Not to mention the fact that there are far more rules in D&D for perpetrating violent conflicts than exploring the moral implications of them (that would be 'a lot' vs. 'effectively none')._




I didn't think one needed to have rules concerning what would happen if one acted in an evil manner. In general, it seems that people generally know how society treats random perpetrators of murder and mayhem, and how religious organizations usually view them.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 1, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Maybe one should use it as more than a team jersey then.



Why? That's what it was made for. Plenty of game have rules that govern ethical conflicts. D&D isn't one of them. 



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I didn't think one needed to have rules concerning what would happen if one acted in an evil manner.



Right, because D&D is primarily about killing things and taking their stuff (ie murder&mayhem). Ethics are an afterthought, and in most games should be treated as such.

A huge part of D&D is about doing imaginary violence. There's no shame in admitting that. If you need proof of this assertion, may I direct you to several thousand pages of rules devoted to the practical application of imaginary violence? I understand that some people like a thin veneer of justification painted over their doing of imaginary violence and that's cool. But let's not mistake some cheap justifications --like D&D sketchily sketched ethical guidelines-- for something they're not. 

Killing a mouthy peasant for being mouthy isn't much different from killing an orc because it's an orc. The trick is not to get hung up the relative morality of either and find ways to keep the action/challenges rolling.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 1, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The alignment guidelines didn't lead me to that conclusion. Observing people playing the game for the past 23 years did. Not to mention the fact that there are far more rules in D&D for perpetrating violent conflicts --and improving yourself by doing so--  than exploring the moral implications of said violent confilcts (that would be 'a lot' vs. 'effectively none').




I would say you're looking at the wrong evidence and making the wrong conclusions. 

The alignment guidelines make it clear that D&D alignments are not mere social constructs but objective traits that a character may or may not conform to (or may conform to in varying degrees). 
D&D also has far more rules for governing violence than ethical conflicts because that is where more rules are necessary to make a fair game.

Neither really makes the case that might makes right in D&D. Individual groups are free to ignore moral and ethical constraints on their characters, but that's up to individual groups and shouldn't be taken to mean that D&D is morally based on might makes right.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 2, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> As another aside; to all those of you who've recommended that he come down like a ton of bricks on a band of PC's who don't believe they've done anything wrong.
> 
> That's a great way to get uninvited as the DM.




Uninvited as a DM?  That's a bizarre concept to me.

From ENWorld it seems like there's some culture of anonymous pick up games of D&D at game stores or something . . . the world of D&D I've seen is friends (or at least acquintances) playing at the DM's place, at the DM's invitation, with the DM as the clear instigator and leader. There, it's the DM who writes/picks the world and adventures and decides how the world works and the tone.  That's when I'm on either side of the screen.

DMing is like being a professor.  You can't do it right if you're worried about being "fired".


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven, thanks for the link, but honestly, I'm not going to look at it.  I've read plenty on the subject.  Clearly, you have your opinion and nothing I post (no matter how convincing---or even blindingly obvious) I think it is is going to change your mind.  So I'm not going to waste any more time with it.


			
				haakon1 said:
			
		

> Uninvited as a DM?  That's a bizarre concept to me.
> 
> From ENWorld it seems like there's some culture of anonymous pick up games of D&D at game stores or something . . . the world of D&D I've seen is friends (or at least acquintances) playing at the DM's place, at the DM's invitation, with the DM as the clear instigator and leader. There, it's the DM who writes/picks the world and adventures and decides how the world works and the tone.  That's when I'm on either side of the screen.
> 
> DMing is like being a professor.  You can't do it right if you're worried about being "fired".



You also can't do it right if you're not even worried about doing it right.

The bizarre concept to me is, "I'm going to suffer through this frustrating 'game' that I'm supposed to be enjoying, even though I'm not, because I have absolutely nothing else going on in my life that competes with my time and attention, so I just game in games I don't like because I don't know what else to do."

Do I game with friends?  Yes.  Absolutely.  I wouldn't bother gaming with anyone else... gamedays and GenCon excepted.  That doesn't mean I'm going to let a friend run a crappy game for me without telling him that his game sucks.

And crappy obviously isn't an objective standard; it simply is vernacular for "something I don't enjoy."  Being punished in game because my idea of what appropriate PC behavior and the DM's idea for the same is my idea of frustrating, lame, and sucky.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of these players here.  Because if you're a DM and you're not doing that, chances are you're not a very good DM.


----------



## hong (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> -1. This is not an alignment issue.
> 
> 0. This is why, as a general rule, the people with blue circles around their feet should not be played as annoying.



And still noone listens to meeeee


----------



## cr0m (Apr 2, 2008)

This is 100% a player & DM issue, not an in-game issue. The OP said that his players don't seem to see that they're not acting like good guys, and he wants them to either act like good guys or lose the benefits of being good guys (ie paladinhood).

Now, if he asks the players what they want to do, and they say "we want to keep being ruthless killers" (no value judgment on my part), the DM has a choice. Either he can chuck good/evil distinctions out the window and play that sort of game, in which case all the advice about NPC-related consequences is excellent. If the DM doesn't want to chuck good/evil out the window, he better tell the players that he can't play that way without imposing some sort of atonement, and go for it.

Either way, it sounds like the makings of some great games.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 2, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Further, if *you* had (accidental) custody of a child, and someone you were warned about asked for him and wouldn't give a reason, would you turn it over unless forced?




The OP scenario was that the PC's witnessed the mother dying, and asking that the father not get the child, and then the father asked for his son.  Frankly, I'm not sure what this scenario is doing in D&D.  If somebody wants to roleplay family court/social workers doing custody cases, I guess that's their business, but D&D seems an odd medium for it.

I don't see why a father needs a reason to want custody of his motherless son.

To nevertheless answer your question:  Would I, if I was on a jury or a judge, vote to award custody of a child to his sole surviving parent?  In any non-bizarre society (e.g., other than ancient Sparta), I'd think the law would give me no other choice, plus it seems like obvious biological justice to me, so of course I would.  If I was on the island of no-laws everybody-kills-people-whenever they want, I'd do the same, because who else is going to look after the child, and again, parents taking care of their own kids would be my default assumption for what's right.

This reminds me of the Elian Gonzalez case, in which a Cuban woman was fleeing to America with her young son and died on the way, with the kid being rescued and brought to America.  The father back in Cuba asked for his son back, and US government complied.  At the time, some people pilloried Attorney General Janet Reno for sending him back (and sending heavily armed cops to get him from the people who were taking care of him).  At the time, I didn't think there was any other choice -- how can the sole surviving parent not have custody?

The difference here is that the kid wouldn't have to go to Cuba, the OP didn't mention any other downside of the father getting back his kid, and nobody in their wildest dreams ever thought of killing Elian's dad for wanting his kid, or that doing so could be anything but bald-faced evil . . .


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 2, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In my world adventurers don't get to behave like thugs and face no consquences.




My world too.  Again, it's the DM who decided how the world works and sets the tone of the campaign.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 2, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> So I'm not going to waste any more time with it.




Well, I agree with that at least.  

I apologize to the OP that this turned into a nasty slugfest about nothing in particular.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Killing a mouthy peasant for being mouthy isn't much different from killing an orc because it's an orc. The trick is not to get hung up the relative morality of either and find ways to keep the action/challenges rolling.




Umm, yeah. Let's just ignore that you said that who your actions are directed towards doesn't affect the relative morality of these actions, why don't we. Because otherwise your statement would be unimaginably monstrous.

I can see why you have a problem discerning "good" and 'evil" if this is your attitude.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Storm Raven, thanks for the link, but honestly, I'm not going to look at it.  I've read plenty on the subject.




Oh, that's a good argument: "I won't look at actual evidence because that might disturb my preconceived notions about a subject. Never mind that the link is to a comprehensive look at the history of dueling and the laws surrounding it put out by the George Washington University Law School.



> _Clearly, you have your opinion and nothing I post (no matter how convincing---or even blindingly obvious) I think it is is going to change your mind.  So I'm not going to waste any more time with it._




Thus far you've posted _nothing_ convincing in any way. You've posted a pile of popular claptrap on a poorly understood subject, backed up by nothing. Popular claptrap that is contradicted by the actual historical record. And then you decided not to look at a review of the actual historical record. Yeah, pretty unconvincing.

Between you, and the faculty of a major law school on the subject, I'll take the faculty. At least they supply evidence to support their claims.



> _I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of these players here.  Because if you're a DM and you're not doing that, chances are you're not a very good DM._




I usually try not to put myself in the shoes of players who have their characters engage in vile, criminal, immoral acts and then expect, somehow, that this won't make their characters evil or have other untoward consequences. I'm kind of funny that way.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> -1. This is not an alignment issue.
> 
> 0. This is why, as a general rule, the people with blue circles around their feet should not be played as annoying.




Wish more people would consider this.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 2, 2008)

Interesting thread so far. Please keep on-topic, and away from personal sniping.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Oh, that's a good argument:



*sigh*  I said I wasn't going to waste any more time with you on that.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I usually try not to put myself in the shoes of players who have their characters engage in vile, criminal, immoral acts and then expect, somehow, that this won't make their characters evil or have other untoward consequences. I'm kind of funny that way.



:shrug:  Whatever.  It's your game.  That doesn't mean that your advice is any good, though.  Paying attention to your players and their expectations from the game is *always* a good idea, and saying that you won't is always a bad one.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 2, 2008)

While I found the debate on dueling in history really interesting. I have been burning up google on it today.

I will admit to sometimes getting a little peeved when historical facts are brought up in a DnD discussion about alignment issues. Take dueling maybe it was frowned on here in our world but in the imaginary world of some DMs it may be perfectly lawful and have an entire society based around it. 

They are great as possible examples on how to handle things but saying well in our world this was an evil act or an unlawful act does not make it true for some fantasy world.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> *sigh*  I said I wasn't going to waste any more time with you on that.




When all your arguments fail in the face of evidence, walk away.



> _:shrug:  Whatever.  It's your game.  That doesn't mean that your advice is any good, though.  Paying attention to your players and their expectations from the game is *always* a good idea, and saying that you won't is always a bad one._




No. It isn't _always_ a good idea. If players want to play in a game in which they get to be murderous thugs without consequence, then paying attention to them is usually a waste of my time. The needs and desires of those sorts of players are of no consequence to me, and if they don't have fun, I could not care less. If they get mad and walk out as a result, I'd say "don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out". Catering to people who want to play out things like murder fantasies is just a waste of my tme.

Suggesting that you shouldn't pay attention to players who want to play a style of game you think is lousy is _always_ good advice. The game also involves the DM, and while the DM needs players to have a campaign, given the fact that players are much easier to find than DMs, the players need the DM far more than he needs them, so playing the type of the game the DM wants to run is the paramount concern. If someone wants to play a game in which players can engage in random acts of murder and mayhem and suffer no consequences, let them run the game.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I had figured that "might makes right" had pretty much been discarded as a moral guide. I guess I was wrong. You see, what keeps people who are more powerful than others from killing and running rampant is generally morality - those who are "good" don't engage in wanton acts of murder and destruction in response to insults and uncivility. Those who are "evil" often do.
> 
> No one is saying that the PCs are not powerful. No one is saying that they could not kill peasants that annoyed them or burn villages to the ground in response to an insult. The only thing that is being said it that, in D&D terms, they would be evil if they did so.




You know something that the characters in question *never* did?  Initiate unprovoked violence.  Go back and read the OP.  What they did do is respond to threats with overwhelming, lethal force.  (comments about the first encounter described at the bottom)



> Given that the paladin in question is working for the same king as the arbiter, it seems like there really isn't an "unjust law" question here. Certainly there isn't any justification for killing the guy.




Sure there is.  If the arbitrator cannot (or chooses not to) justify his word as law, that word becomes unbinding on lawful characters.



> Because it isn't "evil" to kill those who refuse to answer your questions. Umm, yeah.




I'm just guessing here, but the sequence of events probably wasn't:
Why do you want the kid?
I'm not telling.
PCs: smash

but more like

Why don't you want the kid?
Not telling?
Then no kid.
Arbitrator: threat
PCs: smash

Side note, of general interest: *there are no friendly brawls in DnD*.  Any "friendly, unarmed brawl" in DnD will end with people unconcious on the ground.  Which is the definition of an unfriendly brawl.  Choosing non-lethal damage over lethal is a matter of trying to knock you out vs killing you: both are trying to put you into hospital.  Players seem more in tune with this reality, and respond to unarmed attacks as what they really are: a very real threat.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I would say you're looking at the wrong evidence and making the wrong conclusions.



It's somehow inappropriate to use the evidence provided by personal experience and several thousand pages worth of rules for doing lovingly detailed, neigh, fetishized fantasy violence ("My character is deadly with a whip! Oh yeah, mine smooshes you by throwing big rocks! Hah, mine kills with ooze!")??

It's all great fun, but a spade's a spade. Unless it's taken a few levels of the Invisible Hoe PrC... (hey, that's good). 



> The alignment guidelines make it clear that D&D alignments are not mere social constructs but objective traits that a character may or may not conform to (or may conform to in varying degrees).



According to the RAW, alignment isn't a social/ethical/moral system at all; it really describes certain spell behaviors/interactions. 



> D&D also has far more rules for governing violence than ethical conflicts because that is where more rules are necessary to make a fair game.



It doesn't take thousands of pages of rules to create a balanced, workable combat system cf. 1st or 2nd edition Runequest. When your rule set reaches the size of D&D, with bulk of the pages devoted to new classes/magical armaments/foes to kill, I think you have to admit that better _balance_ isn't the design goal...


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And still noone listens to meeeee




The rest of the thread has merely been commentary.

(I'm not entirely kidding.  Here, at least, Hong spoke truth.  Push PCs and they *will* push back.  Possibly preemptively)


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Let's just ignore that you said that who your actions are directed towards doesn't affect the relative morality of these actions, why don't we. Because otherwise your statement would be unimaginably monstrous.



Wait, we're still talking about fictional characters like my mouthy peasant and run-of-the-mill orc, right? Let me know when that changes, will you?

(Heh, D&D NPC's barely rate as fiction most of the time, let alone entities that you can make meaningful, non-silly moral statements with regard to.)



> I can see why you have a problem discerning "good" and 'evil" if this is your attitude.



I'm quite sharp when it comes to discerning between the real and imaginary. This comes in handy when discussing ethics.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> You know something that the characters in question *never* did?  Initiate unprovoked violence.  Go back and read the OP.  What they did do is respond to threats with overwhelming, lethal force.  (comments about the first encounter described at the bottom)




Comments that include a justification _you made up_. Note that the OP _didn't_ say "the arbiter threatened them" he said, "the arbiter asked for his child, wouldn't somehow justify this request, and they attacked and killed him".

In other words, they initiated unprovoked violence. Contrary to the fantasy version you have spun as justificiation for unprovoked murder and mayhem.



> _Sure there is.  If the arbitrator cannot (or chooses not to) justify his word as law, that word becomes unbinding on lawful characters._




That is the lamest argument I've seen this week. The arbiter doesn't have to justify his actions to a bunch a ragamuffin PCs. Any more than a judge would have to justify an order, or a police officer has to engage in on-the-spot banter with a criminal. Maybe _later_ he would be called to account for his actions, but at the time? Not a chance.



> _I'm just guessing here, but the sequence of events probably wasn't:
> Why do you want the kid?
> I'm not telling.
> PCs: smash
> ...




In other words, you've decided to make up stuff that appears not to have happened. And even if he _did_ threaten, that doesn't mean the appropriate nonevil response is "kill him!".



> _Side note, of general interest: *there are no friendly brawls in DnD*.  Any "friendly, unarmed brawl" in DnD will end with people unconcious on the ground._




Not necessarily. I think you are, once again, assuming things to be true that are not universally so. I've DMed and played in seveal brawl situations in which one or more of the combating parties, upon realizing they would not prevail retreated, surrendered, or otherwise ceased hostilities.



> _Which is the definition of an unfriendly brawl.  Choosing non-lethal damage over lethal is a matter of trying to knock you out vs killing you: both are trying to put you into hospital.  Players seem more in tune with this reality, and respond to unarmed attacks as what they really are: a very real threat._




The problem is, even in an "unfriendly brawl" escalating from nonlethal to lethal violence usually has much more severe consequences. To drag a real world example in, usually a brawl that ends without someone maimed or killed results in midemeanor charges, a slap on the wrist, and maybe a civil suit. A brawl that ends with someone dead usually results in a felony trial, and often a lengthy prison term.

Escalating a nonlethal struggle to a lethal one is a significant step. If it is clear to the players that this is the case, you are much more likely to have a situation in which they respect that barrier when it is appropriate to do so.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Wait, we're still talking about fictional characters like my mouthy peasant and run-of-the-mill orc, right? Let me know when that changes, will you?




And apparently you can't distinguish how one should be treated differently than the other.



> _I'm quite sharp when it comes to discerning between the real and imaginary. This comes in handy when discussing ethics._




Ah yes, the completely inane argument that "it's all imaginary, so it doesn't matter". If it is all imaginary, why are you bothering posting to a thread in which a poster wanted to know if an action would be considered good or evil in game? If all actions are equally good or evil in game, why bother to respond? Why clutter the thread with this sort of irrelevant and empty statement?

The point is that in game, one should be treated differently than the other. That is the essence of discerning good from evil in the game. Even if it is imaginary, it matters in the game.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And apparently you can't distinguish how one should be treated differently than the other.



Well, no matter how one treats them it doesn't amount to 'monstrous'.



> The point is that in game, one should be treated differently than the other.



And my point is that it's not particularly relevant to discuss how players react to NPC's. What is relevant is how a DM reacts to players; that regardless of whether the players actions are good, evil, or somewhere in between, they should lead to interesting consequences and opportunities for challenging play. 

If a DM is ever tempted to 'punish' their players for transgressive acts, or 'teach them the error of their ways', then that DM really aught to throw in the towel.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Well, no matter how one treats them it doesn't amount to 'monstrous'.




If you think the two are equivalent moral acts, then yes, it probably does.



> _If a DM is ever tempted to 'punish' their players for transgressive acts, or 'teach them the error of their ways', then that DM really aught to throw in the towel._




I don't think anyone here is talking about punishing players. The issue is punishing the characters. And I think it is entirely appropriate for characters to suffer consequences for their actions. If they want to behave like murderous thugs, then they drift to evil, become outlaws, and generally have lots of attendant troubles. They certainly don't get to keep applying the label "good" to themselves.

Generally, a party of four 5th level PCs who become evil and engage in the type of behaviour described in the original post become an appropriate challenge for a band of 9th+ level good adventurers to hunt down. What? You thought you were the _only_ band of adventurers roaming about?


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Apr 2, 2008)

I must concur with Hong.  The alignment side of this issue is merely ornamentation decorating the core of the situation, which is how the characters interact with the world, and how that world interacts with them.  The DM must reach a decision as to whether or not he wishes the world to react to the PCs actions in a proactive manner, or simply allow the PCs to do as they choose without repricussion.  

As others have mentioned, in a few games it is simply, kick in the door, take the treasure, and party at the tavern afterwards.  It really sounds like this is the type of game your players are engaging in from what you have said so far.  Those loutish NPCs are starting a brawl with us after we played pranks on them, and beating us?  Screw that, we pull weapons and kick their ass!

That creepy Vincent is demanding his kid, without giving us a reason?  Let's kill that arrogant/weird bastard, and make sure he never comes back as some Undead monstrosity to bother us again.  Now that we've done that, let's go find a dungeon to raid!

And hey, those games can be great fun.  The question is whether or not this style is meshing with the DMs preferences as well.  So, as DM, what I would do is make a decision to either go along with the hack'n'slash, or create a more story centric, character driven campaign.

Now, if you choose to go with the latter, make certain to explain that you are going to be moving the campaign in this direction with your players beforehand.  That way, when the world starts reacting in a logical method to the players actions, where it has not before (if that's the case), the players are not surprised or upset.

Now, your idea of having the peasant depart to turn the PCs in to the law could be the trigger point for this new campaign style regardless of its outcome.  The PCs could choose to butcher the peasant, thus committing themselves to the dark path that will forever dominate their destiny, and leading to the intrigue with Hades that you are preparing.

Or, the PCs could choose to allow the peasant to live, and begin the road towards redemption.  If the PCs have performed heroic deeds in the past that benefitted the kingdom, the King of the land could simply bind them to his service for the remainder of years that Vincent was supposed to serve.  The king could request they make up for the loss of such a valuable agent of the King by protecting the country and performing the duties that Vincent was once responsible for.

And the third possibility, is they decide on a method for detaining or capturing the peasant.  Depending on the level of your PCs, perhaps they Imprison him, or send him to another plane of existence, or perhaps they transport him far off to another country.  Perhaps they even attempt to enslave him with a Geas or other spell, or they blackmail/strong arm him with their diplomatic skills/force of arms into keeping quiet.

At this point, you could have other parties be aware of the fate of the peasant, and begin attempting to blackmail the PCs with this information.  Give this blackmailer a back up power source, a group, a secret BBEG behind his actions, or some other such thing, as given the PCs nature, they may simply kill anyone who attempts to blackmail them.  

As such, to keep the story driven nature of the campaign up, again if that is what you want, have gears that will be set into motion by the PCs murder of the blackmailer.  Perhaps the real enemy knew the PCs would kill the blackmailer all along, and set it up so that by doing so, they're exposed as violent and dangerous criminals.

This causes the focus of the countries law abiding forces to shift to the PCs, allowing the BBEG or what have you behind this whole scenario to move forth with his wicked plans for world domination unfettered.  The PCs, while fending off the hounds set loose against them, realize this evil plot and must set forth to stop it before it can happen, with no options other than their own wits and resources.  

They are now wanted criminals throughout the land, while their enemy is a respected noble/shadowy figure none know of, and no one will believe these ne'er do wells and known villains mad warnings, doubtlessly contrived as a last ditch effort to save themselves from justice.

Or, depending on the players temprament, the shadowy figure/respected noble could now come to them after having exposed them and ruined their reputation, and claim that while everyone else now despises them, he/she realizes their true worth, and offers to enlist the PCs to their cause and the eventual destruction of all of their mutual enemies.  

Just figure out based on the peasant scenario what type of game your players seem most interested in, and roll on out from there.  From what you described, your group is a good one, and so you should have fun with any of the possible scenarios.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

Or the king could simply decide "Whoa, I didn't know Vincent was as stupid and inept as to get himself killed by acting arrogantly and rudely with the wrong sort of people. Good thing he died before I sent him to the neighboring realm, or he might've started a war".

I mean, if we're talking logic and consequences: We have here an arbiter that was simply too stupid to handle PCs. At best he'd have made them mad, possibly causing them to leave the country. At worst, he might have provoked them into launching an attack on the crown. And what for? So he would not have to invent or state a reason to get the kid? Sheer lazyness, in other words? How on earth did he ever get his position? He seems inept at politics.

Good or evil aside, his actions were stupid, suicidal and dangerous to his king. You simply do not treat PCs of a certain level that way unless you somehow managed to be ignorant or ignore their personal power. I find the idea that it's realistic for anyone to try to bully people who can level a kingdom if they put their mind ot it a tad odd. 

Again, there's a double standard: PCs are expected to act smart, and not tweak the dragon's nose, or provoke the neighbor's king and army, by acting arrogantly, but NPCs are expected to be able to do that? Or do PCs get to ignore dilpomacy and bluff and sense motive, as long as the are in the right, without any consequences either?

Let's play NPCs as having more than two braincells, and an intellect able to understand that just because they are in the right by law doesn't mean they should push the tank bataillon into rebellion just because they don't want to use diplomacy or bluff.

How many DMs acknowledge the power that PCs wield? How many DMs let NPCs react to that power in a consistent way, and how many simply try to have NPCS bully PCs around no matter the PCs' level?

Good or evil is one question, but maybe there's a need to look objectively at what Vincent did: Acting rashly and rudely, and arrogantly towards a force that is, going from standard D&D world truism, able to wreck his kingdom.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

Please keep in mind that for the average kingdom, trying to treat high-level PCs as wanted criminals is akin to Mexico declaring war on the USA over a border incident. Mexico may be completely without blame in the border incident, but it's still not exactly smart or anything but suicidal.

Past a certain level, PCs become, in the standard D&D world, powers of their own, and should get treated as such.


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Apr 2, 2008)

I would hesitate to take that stance since it implies that anyone who has difficulty in social situations is automatically going to die when they meet people who are more powerful than they are.  Not everyone is polite, not everyone is well cultured and diplomatic, and not everyone is wise/perceptive enough to recognize the differentials in power that may exist when interacting with other individuals.  

Lack of politic conversation should not equate an immediate death warrant, and it most certainly does not equate the PCs, or anyone else, for that matter, having the right to terminate the life of another based on such criteria.  Restraint and tact in the face of difficult people is as much a part of social graces as anything else, and those who cannot maintain such civility and must resort to violence to solve their affairs have been in history, and would be in most D&D worlds, regarded as barbarous and cruel.

I most certainly would not expect any lawful, civilized country or people to look upon the slaying of an agent of the King as justified based on the manner in which he addressed another.  I cannot believe that the King himself would be anything other than outraged or apalled at such actions, especially since they are not only a heinous crime, but an affront to his very authority as the ruler of the land.


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 2, 2008)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> When has *any* adventuring party in a fist fight actually kept it a fist fight?  Show of hands?



I'd say that for the group I run for, it's about 50/50 that they'll draw weapons in a fist fight. They know that if they get into a brawl, I won't have opponents who just happen to be level-appropriate, and that if it turns lethal, they may find themselves put to the sword. If they think they can win, the odds increase though. In a game with guns, however, the chances increase even more that they will turn a brawl lethal, and no, I don't know why. 



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> Embrace the concept of evil PCs. It's fun.



 I concur. Let them be evil, apply the appropriate consequences, and let things fall where they fall. 



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Side note, of general interest: *there are no friendly brawls in DnD*.  Any "friendly, unarmed brawl" in DnD will end with people unconcious on the ground.  Which is the definition of an unfriendly brawl.




Please don't suffer under the delusion that the way it plays in your games is the way it plays in all games. Those fights I mention above, the 50% that don't end in weapons drawn? Those often end in ales, tall tales, and whores, or at leasr gruding respct, with all kinds of people still up and conscious. 



			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> As others have mentioned, in a few games it is simply, kick in the door, take the treasure, and party at the tavern afterwards. It really sounds like this is the type of game your players are engaging in from what you have said so far. Those loutish NPCs are starting a brawl with us after we played pranks on them, and beating us? Screw that, we pull weapons and kick their ass!



 As you note, these kids of games can be great fun, but for those kinds of games, the Players should still pick appropriate characters types - if you want to play a game where you get to go around killing things at the exhalation of a breath, don't play a Paladin or some noble, supposed do-gooder cleric type. 



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> How many DMs acknowledge the power that PCs wield? How many DMs let NPCs react to that power in a consistent way, and how many simply try to have NPCS bully PCs around no matter the PCs' level?



I've always wanted to play in a game like the one you describe, you know, the kind where the PCs have little neon signs above their heads that read "I'm Bob the PC; 5th Level Special Snowflake with 10 XP to go until 6th. Approach at your own risk." Alas, no one has run that kind of game for me yet. I want my sign to be purple. You can have purple neon, right?


----------



## Kishin (Apr 2, 2008)

They killed an agent of the King.

I doubt the King is going to be very pleased with that, heroes or not.

Besides, heroes have a tendency get villified very quickly by authority figures when they start messing with said authority figure. Oh, sure, you were useful THEN, but NOW? Now you're a problem starter.



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> Embrace the concept of evil PCs. It's fun.




Maybe he's not comfortable with running that sort of game. True, the players have their stake in what sort of game is being played, and you should cater to this to some degree, but should the DM also have to suffer through something he's really opposed to? its a group experience, and though he's outnumbered, the DM shouldn't be less important in that regard.

Also, 10 to 1 these 'evil pcs' would be flabbergasted to see the consequences of wanton murder rain down upon them.

In short, I don't see making players deal with the realistic consequences of their actions as 'punishing' them for divergent playstyles. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> I've always wanted to play in a game like the one you describe, you know, the kind where the PCs have little neon signs above their heads that read "I'm Bob the PC; 5th Level Special Snowflake with 10 XP to go until 6th. Approach at your own risk." Alas, no one has run that kind of game for me yet. I want my sign to be purple. You can have purple neon, right?




You never played in a game where what PCs did actually had a meaning? You never played in a game where PCs that slew a dragon were known and famous for it? You never played a character that was known as „Eric the Brave, slayer of Wyrms, Defender of Highkeep, Bane of the Orcs“? Where peasants and nobles knew that Martin the Mage banished a Pit Fiend back to the Abyyss and destroyed a coven of Hags the months before, levelling an entire hill with his spells?

Do you really want to tell me that in your games, no matter what the PCs do, what realms they save, what Dragons they slay, the NPCs still treat them as commoners without a reputation?

In my games, PCs do get a reputation, and most NPCs react accordingly. Even if they are in the right, they'd still be polite, and respectful, just like I expect PCs to act when confronting powers that can kill them easily. Yes, that does mean that the more powerful the PCs get, the more they get away with as well - just as NPCs can get away with a lot if they are powerful enough.

Call that "neon sign style", I call it "actions have consequences - for PCs _and_ NPCs"


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> They killed an agent of the King.
> 
> I doubt the King is going to be very pleased with that, heroes or not.
> 
> ...




1. Realism can go both ways. History shows that Kings (especially weaker ones) often treaded very lightly when dealing with powerful nobles, so as to avoid a rebellion that would wreck the realm. An underling acting rudely toward a duke, f.e., could very well end up sacrificed by the king to placate the duke. How often do we read about plots where the PCs prove some misdeed of a powerful noble, and he gets away still by virtue of his connections and power? Same should apply to the PCs if they have enough power.

2. Changes to a campaign of that scope should be communicated. I agree completely that the DM should have fun running the game, but he should not change the game without checking. Often, people will play differently according to the campaign style.


----------



## Nomad4life (Apr 2, 2008)

Honestly, the PC actions in this case strike me as more stupid than evil.  

Therefore, the solution is quite simple:  Forget good.  Forget evil.  Run a “stupid” game, since that’s what the players seem to want anyway.  Their actions will undoubtably attract the attention of Moronus, God of Stupid, who will bless them with his Gifts of Stupid and relieve them of cumbersome intelligence points.  All of their alignments change to “Stupid” and from that moment on, they only get XP for doing stupid things.  The paladin becomes a Champion of Stupid and gets to keep his abilities (modified, of course; Smite Smart and Protection From Sense, etc...)  Moronus also gives them a copy of his latest stupid jokebook, because you know, he’s a big self-promoter like that.


No?  Oh, well.

In any case, I don’t think the problem here is with alignment, so you might not be able to fix it with alignment-shaped bandages.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

Another way to reduce the "NPC Killing Sprees" is to treat the PCs like you want your NPCs being treated. Respect shown is often shown back. NPC interaction is also a good opportunity to reward the PCs (and players) for acts you like.

If your PCs do a good deed, have it recognised. Have NPCs talk about it, and praise them for it. You get often better results by rewarding desired behaviour than by punishing undesired behaviour.

If they act less than good, show reactions in a less confrontational way. Don't have people try to kill them, but have children show fear, hiding away, have peasants be afraid, nobles avoiding them (politely) and so on.

Above all though, talk with the players, and explain your problem with their actions.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 2, 2008)

At this point in the debate, I thought that this might be a valuable contribution.



> srd:
> 
> ...Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 2, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The rest of the thread has merely been commentary.
> 
> (I'm not entirely kidding.  Here, at least, Hong spoke truth.  Push PCs and they *will* push back.  Possibly preemptively)




And you know what else is true push at the DM and he will push back too. 

If I was DMing and the players acted like these players I would be  tempted to bring down the DM hammer on them. Let's be honest a DM at any time can killl the PCs. Then of course there would be hard feelings all around so most likey I wouldn't do it. 

I would just quit and tell the players that this kind of game is not fun for me and they need to find a DM who does not mind playing like this.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 2, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Please keep in mind that for the average kingdom, trying to treat high-level PCs as wanted criminals is akin to Mexico declaring war on the USA over a border incident. Mexico may be completely without blame in the border incident, but it's still not exactly smart or anything but suicidal.
> 
> Past a certain level, PCs become, in the standard D&D world, powers of their own, and should get treated as such.




I don't buy this that everyone will bow and scapre before PCs just because they are powerful. 

Do I think low level unimportant people like tavern keepers who know how powerful the pCs are would treat them warily yes I do.

But that is not always true of a high ranking official or a noble who is secure in his position. Because if the world has laws and standing armies then just killing a mouthy noble should have severe consquences to the PCs who do it.

At 15 level pCs are almost unstoppable by any town guard but what would be the sense of slaying all them just because you can when they come to arrest you for starting  a
bar brawl.

I played the 15 level fighter and I had great fun smashing up a bar over an insult to my country. It was all subdual damage. When the town guard showed up I was trapped and could not get through them unless I fought them to. I don't play my characters as stupid or metagame hey I am a high level PC I am untouchable. I surrendered spent the night in jail singing drunken songs with my former brawlers and got released in the AM after I paid a fine.

I could have fought by way out but then we would have to have left town without finishing our mission to the town.

In the game world you meet all kinds of NPCs some are polite some are not. Unless you are playing evil PCs who don't care about the consquences and you do want role playing in your game then the answer is not kill everyone who insults you or pisses you off. 

Saying its the dMs fault because not all NPCs bow and cower at the sight of the PCs is wrong. It is players playing their PCs as chaotic stupid. 

As I said before if my plaers wnated to behave like this I would have consquences like their reputation would grow about their murderous ways. Nobody would willing help them, they would not be welcome in lawful kingdoms and they would get the attention of a band of good adventurers who would be high enough level to bring them to justice.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 2, 2008)

At the end of these 5 pages, my opinion has not really changed. I think that the OP should just switch the paladin's class to Paladin of Freedom and keep the game going with the Outlaw theme. No hurt feelings, there's consequences for actions, no arguing over evil/good alignment issues, everybody gets to keep their characters, plot is generated, and that's clearly the game the players wan. Everybody wins.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 2, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> I am currently playing a long standing campaign with 3 friends.  Together they are a Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter/hexblade/sorcerer.




A hexblade and a paladin? That should have been a warning sign.


----------



## Midknightsun (Apr 2, 2008)

I'm of the camp that the PCs acted foolishly, arrogoantly, and more than a little evil.  To say that a grumpy or rude personality is an open invitation to kill someone is just trying to justify an evil action, and to say that powerful characters are less subject to alignment because of this is just plain wrong. . .but I'm sure it is a lot of evil characters would do.   If good and evil just become scribbles on a sheet, whats the point of having them?  By stretching the definition of both to justify any action the player wants for their character, they've pretty much destroyed any meaning in good or evil, and in this case lawful or chaotic as well. 

Though as a DM I do lay down my expectations of general behaviors and what alignment means before a campaign, there's always some sort of situation that comes up with specific players that causes someone to go on an unjustified killing spree and rationalize it away later.  These players I talk to and try to get to work with me in the campaign.  And believe me, I'm super flexible, just not a push over.  The ones who just can't no longer play in our group.  Its that simple.

In the arbiter example, there were bunches of things the PCs could have done other than just kill the guy. Knock him out at leave-- if they didnt feel comfortable giving him the baby-- and probably go to the King with their dilemma being lawful types, for example. 

Acting evil as they did I think it would be fitting for the DM to apply the appropriate consequences for their actions.  the problem is with some players, any type of reaction from the DM that is not in their favor can be seen as retaliation, which puts the DM in a no win situation where he must cater to their ego-masturbations, or be seen as a "jerk".  Honestly, I have no problem at ths point in my gaming career with having a talk with the players after such a scene as the OP described, and if we were unable to come to an understanding, let them find another DM.  No gaming is far better than bad gaming.  

I think picking a lawful good aligned character and then pulling off an action like the OP described, as a player, is little different than a DM stating you're going to be playing in a game where you're all clerics.  Then as the game is starting, telling you none of you have spells because the gods just died.  There are certain expectations given with specific labels that if not met cause hard feelings on both ends.


----------



## The Eternal GM (Apr 2, 2008)

Now now, hexblades need not be evil...

Anyway, while I'm a bit late to this party, I do have a suggestion.

You say you're not a big stickler for alignment anyway, and having a hard time steering the players with a moral compass?

So don't bother.

Usually when alignment debates arise, it's in conjunction with religious concerns too.  Your issue is about the characters and the politics.  So I'd say...

Just go with the flow.

If the player's are cold blooded, let them be.  If this brings them to a sticky end, then it does.  If the internal logic of your setting states that the King is gonna be p*ssed at them...  Then he's p*ssed at them!

Let them deal with the consequences.  

On the one hand, maybe they'll go for it.  Action and reaction could define how their party rises and falls, or is forced to seek shelter from this new twist, or whatever.

On the other hand, they're abusing the alignments in order to just run roughshod over your game world without having to pay the price for it.  Which suggests that you either should let them, because it's what they want to do...  Or bring them in line with OOC discussion, since anyone trying to reign them in IC is likely to be found with their head on a pike.

Personal experience?  If the players have a play-for-keeps attitude like this, introduce NPCs and game elements that mirror it.  Most of my players either settle down or get into that style of play.  Not quite adversarial with the GM, but essentially realising that NPCs can draw lines in the sand too!


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 2, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And you know what else is true push at the DM and he will push back too.
> 
> If I was DMing and the players acted like these players I would be  tempted to bring down the DM hammer on them. Let's be honest a DM at any time can killl the PCs. Then of course there would be hard feelings all around so most likey I wouldn't do it.




That's because you know that it would be jackassery of the highest order.  You know that, because D&D grants the DM special authority, you can't use your "DM hammer" when the players make a choice you don't like.  You know that it's an out of game issue, one that should be dealt with out of game.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I would just quit and tell the players that this kind of game is not fun for me and they need to find a DM who does not mind playing like this.




Yeah, out of game issue, out of game response.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 2, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But that is not always true of a high ranking official or a noble who is secure in his position. Because if the world has laws and standing armies then just killing a mouthy noble should have severe consquences to the PCs who do it.




That depends on the power level in question. Would it have severe consequences for the duke of the realm if a knight gets killed after offending him?

And there's a rather large difference between bowing and scraping, and treating high level adventurers according to the power they represent.

Would a noble mouth off to the archmage ruler of a free city? Would the king go to war over said noble ending up dead? Would said noble try to bully the envoy of the Barbarian hordelands? Would the king go to war over the noble ending up dead?

So why would they try to treat the PC archmage, the PC party like that?

Again, in a standard D&D world, high-level PCs are powers of their own. They may be brutal, and even evil, but that doesn't mean a realm goes to war over a noble that was not as smart and diplomatic as he should have been.

Most of this can usually be avoided simply by having the NPCs not act like jerks. Fair? Maybe not. But it avoids a lot of trouble, and is therefore the smart course of action, both for a DM as well as for smart NPCs.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Please keep in mind that for the average kingdom, trying to treat high-level PCs as wanted criminals is akin to Mexico declaring war on the USA over a border incident. Mexico may be completely without blame in the border incident, but it's still not exactly smart or anything but suicidal.




Maybe in your campaigns, but in mine, the PCs are usually just one group among many, and until they are truly high level (say 15th+) they aren't usually strong enough to even consider acting without carefully balancing the consequences.


----------



## prospero63 (Apr 2, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> *QUESTION 1: Is this an act of evil?*




Yes. That paladin should have been stripped of his abilities after the first fight. 



> My now preposed plan:
> 
> Tempt them to do evil and drop the 'good' facade, as they are clearly acting on their own impulses, and not on goodness or law.




Tempt them? They are a walking party of neutral evil right now. No temptation needed. 



> *Question 2: How do you think I should handle this situation?*



*

Dispense with the pretense and just run an evil campaign. 




			Question 3: What do you think the PCs will do to avoid killing the townsman but still get their reward?
		
Click to expand...


*
I think perhaps the only person who thinks the PC's will avoid killing the townsman is you. I have zero doubt that they are going to do exactly that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> At the end of these 5 pages, my opinion has not really changed. I think that the OP should just switch the paladin's class to Paladin of Freedom and keep the game going with the Outlaw theme.




Perhaps you mean to say "Paladin of Slaughter"?

That would seem to fit a band of murdering cutthroats better.


----------



## prospero63 (Apr 2, 2008)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> Sounds like you have a case of players suffering from Chaotic Stupidity.




QFT


----------



## Kishin (Apr 2, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> 2. Changes to a campaign of that scope should be communicated. I agree completely that the DM should have fun running the game, but he should not change the game without checking. Often, people will play differently according to the campaign style.




Oh, agreed. But I think a simple explanation to the PCs that such actions often bring dire consequences is sufficient in that case.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Perhaps you mean to say "Paladin of Slaughter"?
> 
> That would seem to fit a band of murdering cutthroats better.




Yeah, in my opinion too (see first page of posts), but with that class shift, you get a fight. The freedom variant is the compromise position for the OP.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Yeah, in my opinion too (see first page of posts), but with that class shift, you get a fight. The freedom variant is the compromise position for the OP.




I think the Paladin of Freedom option would probably just make the problem worse. By shifting the Paladin to a Paladin of Slaughter, you pretty clearly communicate what the players have become. By "compromising" and making an evil character into a Paladin of Freedom, you obscure that point. If the idea is to actually give a clear signal as to what is considered 'good" and "evil" behaviour, then you need to shift the characters to an evil alignment when they engage in a series of evil acts (as these characters appear to have done).


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> By shifting the Paladin to a Paladin of Slaughter, you pretty clearly communicate what the players have become.



You have yet to demonstrate why communicating that is of any importance with regard to the continuing success of the OP's game. 

The PC's acted, now the DM needs to enforce consequences that fall roughly within the CR/EL guidelines -- like your own previous suggestion to sick a crusading group of 7th level NPC's on them. That was a fine suggestion. A challenging but fair encounter/story arc. 



> If the idea is to actually give a clear signal as to what is considered 'good" and "evil" behaviour, then you need to shift the characters to an evil alignment when they engage in a series of evil acts (as these characters appear to have done).



Except that isn't the idea, or at least it shouldn't be. This thread was a solicitation for practical advice for moving forward, like roguerouge's perfectly sensible suggestion re: the party Paladin becoming a Paladin of Freedom. Only you, SR, seem to think the issue hangs on getting the PC's to publicly confess that they're capital "E" evil. How that would improve their game remains unclear to me. As does the implicit notion that the DM needs to teach the players some sort of lesson.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 2, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Except that isn't the idea. This thread was a solicitation for practical advice for moving forward, like roguerouge's perfectly sensible suggestion re: the Paladin of Freedom. Only you, SR, seem to think the issue hangs on getting the PC's to publicly confess that they're capital "E" evil. How that would improve their game remains unclear to me. As does the implicit notion that the DM needs to teach the players some sort of lesson.




In this case, I think a lesson is in order. The lesson at least needs to be: select the right kind of character classes for the game you want to play. A typical paladin is not appropriate for being a wanton, muderous outlaw or for any campaign where the characters are going to be predominantly evil... at least not without a lot of story planning by the player and DM.

Rather than substitute some kind of other paladin, I'd have the character rebuild the character. I don't see a paladin of freedom being any more appropriate to the character's actions than a standard paladin, the main problem being predominantly evil. Maybe a paladin of tyranny or slaughter, but paladin of freedom should be as right out as the standard paladin. The tool (character class) does not fit the work it is being put to (the PC's behavior in the campaign).


----------



## Helmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> ...I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it).




I think you're wrong about this.  The PCs didn't kill without fear of consequences.  The PCs could have died from fighting the NPCs!  In D&D, appearances are deceiving.  Every battle with NPCs is a huge risk.  The PCs weighed that risk and rolled the dice.

If you want to punish the PCs for daring to have pride and self-respect, the next time the PCs attack an annoying NPC, have the NPC kill the whole party.  DMs can do that, you know.  



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> I want them to either drop the facsade or repent, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to do it in my situation.




You are having a problem because there is no facade to drop and nothing to repent for.

The PCs are heroes because, for the most part, they do heroic stuff that benefits civilization, like killing monsters and saving towns, etc.  If some NPC moron gives them a hard time and the PCs kill them, so be it.  Heroes aren't all sunshine and rainbows, and that includes paladins.  

IMHO, a DM should never oblige his players to roleplay their PCs as wimps, as some posters are suggesting.  PCs being afraid of the cops is wimpy and too 21st century.   In real life, you are obliged to tolerate morons so you don't get sued for knocking their teeth out and tossing them into the path of a bus.  But D&D isn't real life.  In D&D, if an NPC so much as mumbles, "You stink" to a PC, the PC is well within his rights to teach the idiot a lesson.  That's what makes D&D fun!

All that a good-aligned PC should do before slaughtering a mouthy NPC is say, "Watch yer mouth."  Once.  And even the warning is optional.  A narrow-eyed glare is sufficient.

If, once warned, the NPC quickly collapses to his knees and begs forgiveness and offers to buy the PC's party a round of beers, then all will probably be forgiven.  But if the NPC actually has the AUDACITY to stand his ground, he brings his own doom upon himself.

I think the real question you should be asking yourself is this: Why am I trying to humiliate the PCs over and over?  And when the PCs get annoyed by my annoying NPCs, why am I too proud to have my NPCs crap in their pants in terror and beg forgiveness?

In a nutshell, PCs should never have to tolerate annoying NPCs, with the possible exception of old, wrinkly, unarmed female NPC, and even _that_ depends on how annoying she is.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 2, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You have yet to demonstrate why communicating that is of any importance with regard to the continuing success of the OP's game.




I think you need to go back and actually look at the concerns the OP voiced. He is worried that the PCs have decided they can act evil with impunity. Pointing out that they _are_ evil, and their classes should reflect that establishes that this is not the type of thing that can be done with impunity.



> _The PC's acted, now the DM needs to enforce consequences that fall roughly within the CR/EL guidelines -- like your own previous suggestion to sick a crusading group of 7th level NPC's on them. That was a fine suggestion. A challenging but fair encounter/story arc._




Having a paladin who has turned to evil get converted to being a paladin of slaughter is an entirely natural consequence. And I should have said a 9th level group of NPCs, because 4 5th level PCs are an EL appropriate challenge for the 9th level PCs (i.e. 4 CR 5 creatures are an EL 9 encounter). If the PCs decide to behave like villains, they get reacted to as villains - and probably slaughtered by good heroes.



> _Except that isn't the idea, or at least it shouldn't be. This thread was a solicitation for practical advice for moving forward, like roguerouge's perfectly sensible suggestion re: the party Paladin becoming a Paladin of Freedom. Only you, SR, seem to think the issue hangs on getting the PC's to publicly confess that they're capital "E" evil. How that would improve their game remains unclear to me. As does the implicit notion that the DM needs to teach the players some sort of lesson._




Rougerouge's suggestion only clouds the issue. The PCs have turned to evil by committing multiple evil acts. Converting the paladin to a CG aligned class simply obscures this fact. If the PCs want to play evil characters, then they should actually play evil-aligned classes. In other words, the DM should simply call a fork a fork. And then they have to live with the attendant consequences such a choice brings.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If the PCs decide to behave like villains, they get reacted to as villains - and probably slaughtered by good heroes.



I firmly believe that villains should be as playable as heroes. Not that I'm convinced that the OP's players fully qualify as villains yet.

Look, it seems pretty clear that you believe that certain players choices should shut the campaign down. I don't. I look for ways to keep fairly challenging and entertaining my players.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Apr 2, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think you need to go back and actually look at the concerns the OP voiced. He is worried that the PCs have decided they can act evil with impunity. Pointing out that they _are_ evil, and their classes should reflect that establishes that this is not the type of thing that can be done with impunity.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Rougerouge's suggestion only clouds the issue. The PCs have turned to evil by committing multiple evil acts. Converting the paladin to a CG aligned class simply obscures this fact. If the PCs want to play evil characters, then they should actually play evil-aligned classes. In other words, the DM should simply call a fork a fork. And then they have to live with the attendant consequences such a choice brings.




"The PC's" didn't decide anything or do anything.  Not being real, they're sort of handicapped in that respect.  What happened was that the players got a little disconnected from the in-game reality and forgot to roleplay their characters in their excitement about winning.  Such a thing is easy to do in D&D, where most problems can be resolved by killing something.

Saying "the PCs have turned to evil" rather misses the point, because the players haven't roleplayed a turn to evil.  I'm sure when the player of the paladin remembers that his paladin is supposed to be a good guy, he has the PC act like a good guy.  The evil things the players had the PCs do happened not because the players made a conscious decision to have the PCs do bad things but because the players plain forgot that killing NPCs could be considered murder and evil.  In the very sanitized combat of D&D where it's all rolling dice and marking down hitpoints, it's easy for a player to feel no more guilt about killing an NPC than they would about taking a pawn in chess.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> In the very sanitized combat of D&D where it's all rolling dice and marking down hitpoints, it's easy for a player to feel no more guilt about killing an NPC than they would about taking a pawn in chess.



Storm Raven doesn't like to differentiate between the killing of NPC's, chess pieces, or actual people.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> IThe lesson at least needs to be: select the right kind of character classes for the game you want to play.



It's a awkward mix, I'll give you that. 



> A typical paladin is not appropriate for being a wanton, muderous outlaw or for any campaign where the characters are going to be predominantly evil... at least not without a lot of story planning by the player and DM.



All that's really needed is consent from the players and the DM. It's not hard to apply a thin frosting of rationalization on the OP's campaign, and I tried to point out earlier, cheap rationalizations for wanton violence has been a D&D tradition since the first 1e paladin set a nursery of orc babies on fire with his flask of oil. 



> I'd have the character rebuild the character.



That's a perfectly good option, too. 



> The tool (character class) does not fit the work it is being put to (the PC's behavior in the campaign).



The wry cynic in me says that the tool (wonderful pun there) is being used precisely for the work it was intended to do; the killing of imaginary people.


----------



## Hippy (Apr 2, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> You are having a problem because there is no facade to drop and nothing to repent for.
> 
> The PCs are heroes because, for the most part, they do heroic stuff that benefits civilization, like killing monsters and saving towns, etc.  If some NPC moron gives them a hard time and the PCs kill them, so be it.  Heroes aren't all sunshine and rainbows, and that includes paladins.
> 
> ...




I couldn't disagree more with your statements.  Heroes should be just that heroes!  The good guys.  The guys in white hats (to use an american western film image)  Especially the Paladin.  They are suppose to be the icon of what is good and just.  Bashing an NPC or killing them because they annoy you?  Please...In my game the PC would have lost his Paladin status immediately and needed a major atonement.

IMHO most people who run evil campaigns do not run the consequences of the actions such as these remotely accurately.  The PCs would be hunted likely for the rest of their lives in a Lawful Good type kingdom.  Forcing them to leave permanently (and likely ruining the campaign plans of the DM in the process) Granted I do not know what the overall legal system the DM established, however I would encourage him to talk to his players and explain his discomfort with the situation.  If necessary do a reboot of the session(s) that led to the current game derailment. 

On a personal note, I never run an evils game because they are the antithesis of heroic.  I am Christian and find the idea completely distasteful, personally destructive to the game environment around the table, and the great friendships I have formed with my players.  The video game rpgs, that often lack repercussions for evil acts, I believe reinforce the lack of said realistic repercussions in tabletop rpgs.  Please understand I am not telling anyone how to run their own personal game, I am only stating my own personal morals on this topic.  That said, I hope the advice is useful to you and best of luck in resolving your dilemma.  

Hippy


----------



## Helmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Hippy said:
			
		

> I couldn't disagree more with your statements.  Heroes should be just that heroes!  The good guys.




I also think heroes should be good guys and the guys in white hats.  But remember, if the DM never assailed the manhood of the PCs with an annoying NPC, this issue would never have come up.  The DM is being a troublemaker, plain and simple.

If a DM expects every PC to be Sir Lancelot, then he should stick to easily identifiable villains.  But if, for example, the DM has an NPC throw a chamberpot of human excrement on the PCs, or the verbal equivalent, then the PCs shouldn't have to smile through their teeth while hoping it won't happen again, fearing somebody might call the cops if they draw their weapons.  

The basic function of PCs in D&D is to kill everything that deserves it.  The DMs job is to make it clear who deserves it.  If the DM has a problem separating his NPCs into who-you-kill and who-you-don't, that is his problem. 

The PCs are always the guys in white hats until the DM gets all confused and weepy for his slain NPCs and decides that the PCs are bad people and takes away their white hats.  When any DM takes away the white hats, the DM has failed at his job.  

The PCs should always have free rein to kill any adversary, not just the scaly ones with horns.


----------



## Hippy (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> The PCs are always the guys in white hats until the DM gets all confused and weepy for his slain NPCs and decides that the PCs are bad people and takes away their white hats.  When any DM takes away the white hats, the DM has failed at his job.
> 
> The PCs should always have free rein to kill any adversary, not just the scaly ones with horns.




I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the DM failed.  It seems to me there may have been some miscommunication on the expectations of the game or campaign.  But it appears it is two way from the way I am reading it.  Which is why I suggested that the DM talk to the players, get their take on the kind of game they want to play.  If they want a more aggressive style of play with loose restrictions on alignment morality, and if this is not the DM's cup of tea, then it would be better to end the game before friendships are strained in arguments.  If an agreement can be reached, then I would do the "reboot" I suggested above and game on!  Just because the DM is not happy with players actions, does not mean he is in the wrong automatically.  It looks to me that there may be some blame both ways for the problem, but it likely is not insurmountable.

Cheers!  

Hippy


----------



## Helmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Hippy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the DM failed.  It seems to me there may have been some miscommunication on the expectations of the game or campaign.  But it appears it is two way from the way I am reading it.  Which is why I suggested that the DM talk to the players, get their take on the kind of game they want to play.  If they want a more aggressive style of play with loose restrictions on alignment morality, and if this is not the DM's cup of tea, then it would be better to end the game before friendships are strained in arguments.  If an agreement can be reached, then I would do the "reboot" I suggested above and game on!  Just because the DM is not happy with players actions, does not mean he is in the wrong automatically.  It looks to me that there may be some blame both ways for the problem, but it likely is not insurmountable.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Hippy




Well, the DM has a lot of power.  The second he stops creating the types of situations that get on his nerves, the problem is solved and everybody is happy.

It's not like the PCs are raping women, robbing the bank and burning the orphanage.  In other words, the players are not trying to run evil PCs.  I'm pretty sure the PCs are white-hatted good guys who only want to do good things and occasionally kill the annoying NPCs who humiliates them. 

IMHO, it's okay for PCs to have a low tolerance for insults.  I think it's cool, and I don't see that as _evil_ so much as _trigger-happy_.  

Am I wrong?  Is there no precedent in books and movies for a "good" character to kill people over insults?

(BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult.  It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway.  It's totally an insult.  If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated.  Ergo, they can kill him if they want.  It's the code of the violent hero.)


----------



## Hippy (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> IMHO, it's okay for PCs to have a low tolerance for insults.  I think it's cool, and I don't see that as _evil_ so much as _trigger-happy_.
> 
> Am I wrong?  Is there no precedent in books and movies for a "good" character to kill people over insults?




If they are killing an NPC over an insult, I would consider that an evil act.  A "bar fight" or duel to first blood is reasonable given the genre of the game, but killing in my game would be going over the line.  In books and movies when this happens I generally would not consider them necessarily the "good guys".  Their hat might be kind of gray now.

That again is why I suggested a time out to talk game expectations over and then deciding how to handle the problem.   Just as we appear to disagree over what crosses the line, I suspect they have the same problem.

Just my two coppers worth   

Hippy


----------



## Helmet (Apr 3, 2008)

I had a DM who overly humiliated a PC of mine and I couldn't do anything about because of his world's powerful justice system, and I hated it.

I think I'm still annoyed by that, and probably it has effected my point of view a little bit in this thread.  (Can you tell?  Haha.)


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Look, it seems pretty clear that you believe that certain players choices should shut the campaign down. I don't. I look for ways to keep fairly challenging and entertaining my players.




I don't see certain choices as shutting the campaign down, I see the campaign world reacting in appropriate ways to the choices made by the characters. What would happen in most campaigns if the typical good-aligned PC heroes heard about a band of four evil creatures roaming about killing people in barfights and killing the agents of the (presumably good-aligned) royal government? In most campaigns, the PCs would decide that this was a situation that they should rectify by eliminating the band of bandits, brigands, cutthroats, or whatever else you want to call them.

Why is it unreasonable to expect the same thing to happen in reverse if the PCs assume the role of the brigands? This is an entirely _predictable_ and _reasonable_ consequence of acting in an evil manner; to wit: you bring down the retribution of good aligned heroes upon your head.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> Am I wrong?  Is there no precedent in books and movies for a "good" character to kill people over insults?




Name some. Then we can see who you think are good heroes who kill people over insults.



> _(BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult.  It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway.  It's totally an insult.  If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated.  Ergo, they can kill him if they want.  It's the code of the violent hero.)_




The code of evil violent heroes maybe. Good violent heroes? No.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> But if, for example, the DM has an NPC throw a chamberpot of human excrement on the PCs, or the verbal equivalent, then the PCs shouldn't have to smile through their teeth while hoping it won't happen again, fearing somebody might call the cops if they draw their weapons.




Do you really think that the only possible response a PC has to an insult or slight is to produce their weapons and start stabbing the offenders in the kidneys? When I think of people who react that way, I don't think "hero", I think "psychopath".


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Saying "the PCs have turned to evil" rather misses the point, because the players haven't roleplayed a turn to evil.  I'm sure when the player of the paladin remembers that his paladin is supposed to be a good guy, he has the PC act like a good guy.  The evil things the players had the PCs do happened not because the players made a conscious decision to have the PCs do bad things but because the players plain forgot that killing NPCs could be considered murder and evil.  In the very sanitized combat of D&D where it's all rolling dice and marking down hitpoints, it's easy for a player to feel no more guilt about killing an NPC than they would about taking a pawn in chess.




No one ever said role-playing a paladin was easy. No one ever said role-playing a hero was easy either. The difference between a hero and a villain is that the hero remembers that things like murder are not appropriate responses in bar fights, and allows this sort of thinking to curtail his range of actions. The villain doesn't. If the player's can't remember this, then they shouldn't pretend to play as heroes, but rather should play what they really are, villains.

And remember, in 3e at least, alignment follows actions. Not the other way around. If the PCs behave in an evil fashion, they _are_ evil, even if they didn't intend to, or "roleplay a turn to evil". An entirely unintentional slide to evil is clearly possible under the alignment guidelines given in the 3e rules.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Storm Raven doesn't like to differentiate between the killing of NPC's, chess pieces, or actual people.




Thus far, you really haven't added much to the thread, since, according to you, they are just imaginary anyway, so who cares how the PCs act. Of course, that's an entirely unhelpful response to the OPs question. How the PCs treat NPCs matters in the game. If you don't think so, then there's no reason for you to be arguing in this or any other thread that has D&D alignment as its topic, since, according to you, it is all irrelevant anyway.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Do you really think that the only possible response a PC has to an insult or slight is to produce their weapons and start stabbing the offenders in the kidneys? When I think of people who react that way, I don't think "hero", I think "psychopath".



 FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVIES AND RPGS:

With movies, you can't kill Jar-Jar Binks. With RPGs, you can.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVIES AND RPGS:
> 
> With movies, you can't kill Jar-Jar Binks. With RPGs, you can.




Jar-Jar is a special case. Killing him would be an honorable and goodly act.


----------



## hong (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Killing him would be an honorable and goodly act.



Exactly.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> Am I wrong?



Yes.

As wrong as I have ever seen anyone be.

Yes.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> (BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult.  It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway.  It's totally an insult.  If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated.  Ergo, they can kill him if they want.  It's the code of the violent hero.)




It's not an insult if it's *his beer*. Keeping the beer (or infant) from Vincent is the insult because it's an affront to his rightful due.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Jar-Jar is a special case. Killing him would be an honorable and goodly act.




I think a number of DMs do not know just how close some of their NPCs come to Jar-Jar-esque levels of annoyance.


----------



## Thanael (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> The basic function of PCs in D&D is to kill everything that deserves it.  The DMs job is to make it clear who deserves it.  If the DM has a problem separating his NPCs into who-you-kill and who-you-don't, that is his problem.
> 
> The PCs are always the guys in white hats until the DM gets all confused and weepy for his slain NPCs and decides that the PCs are bad people and takes away their white hats.  When any DM takes away the white hats, the DM has failed at his job.
> 
> The PCs should always have free rein to kill any adversary, not just the scaly ones with horns.




 :\ Umm, well. So to you D&D should be the equivalent of an egoshooter. Well to each his own.  While you certainly can play it like that, that is definately not the only way to play it or neccesarily the way it is _meant_ to be played.


----------



## prospero63 (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Do you really think that the only possible response a PC has to an insult or slight is to produce their weapons and start stabbing the offenders in the kidneys? When I think of people who react that way, I don't think "hero", I think "psychopath".




I think * evil. Maybe a little lawful, maybe a little chaotic but definitely evil.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 3, 2008)

Setting Jar-Jar binky NPCs on the PCs is not exactly good either. I'd definetly check with the players, and ask how they think about those NPC killings.

It could very well be that the killing was done not for PC reasons, but simply because the players were fed up with annoying NPCs, and decided to do something about it.


----------



## Helmet (Apr 3, 2008)

What a lot of you clearly don't get is that insults in D&D-land should be extremely rare and always of a serious nature.  Imagine insulting somebody with a gun on their hip in the Old West.  Such behavior would be perilous.  D&D is like that, on steroids.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me go around insulting men who are bigger and stronger than them in real life?  Show of hands?  None?  Gosh, why not?  The law will prosecute the guy who beats you to a pulp, so what are you worried about?

Maybe, just maybe, you people who think having NPCs insult adventurers is sensible and commonplace and realistic, when in fact you are wrong and wrong and wrong.


----------



## Herobizkit (Apr 3, 2008)

Resorting to lethal violence is the staple of D&D.  Really.  It's no surprise that the PC's chose to lop off Vincent's head - he's no different than any other monster that they face on a daily basis.

That said, the OP's players are clearly disinterested in moral/ethical debates and prefer to play a beer n' pretzels kick-down-the-door type game.  OTOH, the OP want to introduce a sense of realism and present plots that have meaning and explore the human condition.

In the above example, the paladin definitely acted against the laws of the state, and that's a no-no.  In fact, that would probably be a chaotic act.  No losing paladinhood, but the player might want to atone (or the OP may want to enforece an atonement by making the pally lose some class abilities) for a chaotic act... YMMV.  (Paladins are a dicey bunch - the DM and player must be crystal clear as to what the paladin code means and what LG means before anyone should even play a Paladin.  Search this site for paladin threads to see what I mean.)  Killing a person in defense of a dead woman's wishes... not evil.  Not NICE, but not evil.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> What a lot of you clearly don't get is that insults in D&D-land should be extremely rare and always of a serious nature.  Imagine insulting somebody with a gun on their hip in the Old West.  Such behavior would be perilous.  D&D is like that, on steroids.
> 
> I wonder how many people who disagree with me go around insulting men who are bigger and stronger than them in real life?  Show of hands?  None?  Gosh, why not?  The law will prosecute the guy who beats you to a pulp, so what are you worried about?




The question here, however, is not whether insulting people in this sort of scenario would be a wise course of action for the insulting party. The question is whether the nonevil response of the insultee would be to kill the offender. The answer is, pretty clearly, no. Killing someone because they insulted you is an evil act, and a pretty clear cut one at that.

You might think an NPC is foolish for insulting the PCs, but that doesn't make killing the NPC any less of an evil act for the PCs.

(And yes, I have insulted men who were bigger and stronger than me. And they didn't kill me, or even respond with violence. Why didn't they? Probably because they were civilized individuals who knew that the consequences for doing so would be entirely too severe for their liking.)


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Killing a person in defense of a dead woman's wishes... not evil.  Not NICE, but not evil.




No, in the scenario presented, it is an evil act. There really isn't any room to maneuver on this one. They attacked and killed someone who asked that their own child be turned over to them. Someone who had the authority of law on his side, and who we have been given no reason to believe is evil. We have a very vague request from a dead woman, with no reason given, but that's certainly no justification for murder. And this isn't even the first time the PCs have jumped a scenario to murderous levels without a real justification.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I don't see certain choices as shutting the campaign down, I see the campaign world reacting in appropriate ways to the choices made by the characters.



That depends on the reaction, doesn't it?



> Why is it unreasonable to expect the same thing to happen in reverse if the PCs assume the role of the brigands?



It's not. You'll should note that I agreed with you about that.



> This is an entirely _predictable_ and _reasonable_ consequence of acting in an evil manner; to wit: you bring down the retribution of good aligned heroes upon your head.




Having good aligned NPC's _attempt_ to bring down retribution on the party is fine, deliberately rigging the results in not. Recall that you previously wrote:



			
				you said:
			
		

> - and probably slaughtered by good heroes



The timbre of this and other posts indicate that you want the PC's to lose now that they have, in your opinion, changed alignments. It goes beyond meting out logical consequences or challenging opponents; you've stopped being an impartial referee and are now, at the very least, cheerleading for the NPC's to defeat the PC's. 

Can you see how that's not a good role for a DM to be in? That way leads to rigging the game. If you changed the 'probably' to 'possibly', we'd be in agreement.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The timbre of this and other posts indicate that you want the PC's to lose now that they have, in your opinion, changed alignments. It goes beyond meting out logical consequences or challenging opponents; you've stopped being an impartial referee and are now, at the very least, cheerleading for the NPC's to defeat the PC's.
> 
> Can you see how that's not a good role for a DM to be in? That way leads to rigging the game. If you changed the 'probably' to 'possibly', we'd be in agreement.




The reason it becomes "probably" is simply math. The 5th level PCs become an appropriate encounter for a party of 4 9th level PCs (since the PCs are EL 9). That's who is likely to hunt them down. It is unlikely that 4 5th level PCs will survive such and encounter, and as a result, the PCs will probably get slaughtered. This is a logical and reasonable consequence of becoming evil.

If you start behaving like villains, the campaign world reacts to you like villains. Most villains get eliminated - usually by heroes. Think about this:

"A terrified peasant finds you party in a bar - in a quiet voice he begs for your help against a band of mercenaries turned murderers. He was unfortunate enough to witness these murderers engage in an unprovoked attack upon an "Arbiter" - a direct agent of the king, who they killed, beheaded, and then burned his body. He doesn't want to get killed as a witness, and asks that you protect him, or bring the killers to justice yourself. The king will probably reward anyone who helps bring down those who murdered his chosen agent."

"You check into this cutthroat band of mercenaries a little more, and discover rumors that they had previously killed some of their own companions as well, apparently for no reason."

If a typical group of PCs got this request, what do you suppose they would do? Yeah, they'd hunt down the PC either before or after getting some sort of sanction from the king to do so. So, the NPC heroes would probably take up this task as well, and before you know it, the PCs find they have probably bitten off more than they could chew.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The reason it becomes "probably" is simply math.



That's not math at all. That's DM Fiat. Used badly, I might add.



> The 5th level PCs become an appropriate encounter for a party of 4 9th level PCs (since the PCs are EL 9).



Except you're not dealing with "9th level PC's". Those are the NPC's. The PC's are the 5th level guys, remember? The players are still the protagonists of the campaign, even when they do something you don't like. Using the EL guidelines like that, the PC's should wind up dead and the NPC party should be down %25 of their resources. After every single encounter.

So like I said, you're advocating rigging the results... 



> That's who is likely to hunt them down.



If the DM decides so, yes. 



> This is a logical and reasonable consequence of becoming evil.



In a campaign world where the DM has decided the PC's have to be good. Rigging, see?



> Most villains get eliminated - usually by heroes.



In every single campaign? What if the PC's are the villains? This isn't logic, it's playstyle preference gussied up as logic.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Except you're not dealing with "9th level PC's". Those are the NPC's. The PC's are the 5th level guys, remember? The players are still the protagonists of the campaign, even when they do something you don't like. Using the EL guidelines like that, the PC's should wind up dead and the NPC party should be down %25 of their resources. After every single encounter.




They may be protagonists, but if they align themselves against the organized, cooperative, generally efficient societies then they get a reponse directed by organized, cooperative and generally efficient individuals. At that point, their life become much harder.



> _In a campaign world where the DM has decided the PC's have to be good. Rigging, see?_




Not rigging, just a natural consequence of turning evil. See?



> _In every single campaign? What if the PC's are the villains? This isn't logic, it's playstyle preference gussied up as logic._




Villains almost always lose. They especially almost always lose in the fiction of the genre. You can make all the protestations you want, but that's the cold hard fact of becoming an evil character. Once you become evil, others don't trust you (even, in many cases, other evil individuals), good heroes will band together and work against you, and you are likely to find yourself living in the wilderness chased by powerful forces working in concert to bring you down. Enjoy your probably short and exciting life.


----------



## cr0m (Apr 3, 2008)

I think its helpful to separate the the situation with Vincent and the baby from the fight with the NPC guards, because we really don't have enough information about the NPC guard situation.

The Vincent situation is an opportunity for some GREAT gaming though. Here's a guy who is ruthless, arrogant and has the law on his side--a very worthy opponent for your ruthless and arrogant PCs. 

The mother asked the PCs not to let Vincent find out but he found out anyway and came to collect the child. Fine. Seems like the DM dropped the ball by letting Vincent find out, since that's where the big conflict was. 

So then the players were in uncharted territory. The mother doesn't trust Vincent, apparently, but they don't know why. When Vincent starts acting suspicious, they fight and kill him. Again, I think the DM dropped the ball by not giving the players much to work with--there's nothing worse than a close-mouthed NPC in conflict with the PCs. That's basically giving them no other options than to fight or give.

If I'm the DM, here's what I do. Get the PCs to contact the mother again, via their Speak with Dead spell or other divinations. Go with Vincent being an evil, evil bastard. The child is extremely important. The King *must* know the truth about this child! For some reason that any DM worth his salt can sort out...

Unfortunately, the King has just declared the PCs outlaws, and all his men are gunning for them. Except for the other Arbiter, but he can't help them directly without risking the same fate.

Instant awesome.

As for the NPC guards that they murdered... there's not enough information there, but it does sound like they were acting out their adolescent fantasies and killing people who bothered them. Sounds like a good time to roll out some atonement.

The atonement is doing whatever the frack is necessary to protect the child and see to it that he does not fall into the wrong hands. This *must* cost the PCs everything. They should lose all their non-portable wealth. Their families are thrown in prison and killed. Anyone who helps them is an outlaw. Their old friends turn on them. And most importantly NONE OF THE MAGIC SHOPS WILL SELL TO THEM! ZOMGWTFBBQ!


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> They may be protagonists, but if they align themselves against the organized, cooperative, generally efficient societies then they get a reponse directed by organized, cooperative and generally efficient individuals.



Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that you used the EL/CR guidelines incorrectly. In fact, you reversed the actual rules so that the NPC's win all the time, and the PC's are nothing more than a resource speed bump. 



> At that point, their life become much harder.



Naturally.



> Villains almost always lose. They especially almost always lose in the fiction of the genre.



Ergo, certain player choices end the campaign. Like the choice to become villains. So people can't play villains in your games, and you advice other DM's to do likewise. Got it. No more to be said.


----------



## Helmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When I think of people who react that way, I don't think "hero", I think "psychopath".





			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, in the scenario presented, it is an evil act.




Wow, suddenly I realized something that I had been wondering about for years.  In the name of all that is holy, why oh why did George Lucas edit Star Wars and change Han Solo from shooting Greedo first, to Greedo shooting at Han first?

The answer is now so clear.  An easily upset, hyper-sensitive subgroup of his fans must have pestered and cry-babied him to death.  "Waaah waaah, Han Solo is a psychopath!  Han Solo is evil!   Not a good guy!  I don't care how much good he did, Han shot first!  He is evil!  And because he killed Greedo, he is a murderer!  And a psychopath!  A PSYCHOPATH!"

There are two types of gamers in the world.  The beer and pretzel woohoo Han-shoots-Greedo-first type, and the ballet slippers and bon bons waaah waaah Han-is-a-psychopath type.  Make no mistake, the first type has waaay more fun playing D&D.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> (BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult. It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway. It's totally an insult. If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated. Ergo, they can kill him if they want. It's the code of the violent hero.)




I'm sorry, Hong has the monopoly on wordplay and faux wit in this thread. You continuing with this is the equivalent of trying to write an epic novel about a white whale.

Also, the white hats do not come with diplomatic immunity.



			
				Helmet said:
			
		

> Maybe, just maybe, you people who think having NPCs insult adventurers is sensible and commonplace and realistic, when in fact you are wrong and wrong and wrong.




Badwrongfun much?


----------



## Chimera (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> There are two types of gamers in the world.  The beer and pretzel woohoo Han-shoots-Greedo-first type, and the ballet slippers and bon bons waaah waaah Han-is-a-psychopath type.  Make no mistake, the first type has waaay more fun playing D&D.





Dude, this is so over-the-top as to be cringeworthy.  There are many shades of grey between those two positions and you discredit yourself with your insistence on illogical polarities.

Personally, I not only do not want "kill anyone who looks at me funny" players at the table in any game I play in, but I do not want to know those people in real life.  My game table is not an outlet for psychopathic behavior that you can't get away with in real life, nor am I or anyone else obliged to allow it.  Especially when doing so disrupts the fun that others (including the GM) are having.  

Angry outburst and insults in defense of what others consider anti-social behavior only tends to reinforce the negative judgement of the person engaging in those behaviors.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Helmet said:
			
		

> Wow, suddenly I realized something that I had been wondering about for years.  In the name of all that is holy, why oh why did George Lucas edit Star Wars and change Han Solo from shooting Greedo first, to Greedo shooting at Han first?
> 
> The answer is now so clear.  An easily upset, hyper-sensitive subgroup of his fans must have pestered and cry-babied him to death.  "Waaah waaah, Han Solo is a psychopath!  Han Solo is evil!   Not a good guy!  I don't care how much good he did, Han shot first!  He is evil!  And because he killed Greedo, he is a murderer!  And a psychopath!  A PSYCHOPATH!"




Wow. Are you off base. The scenario wasn't:

Greedo: Han, you are a poopy head.
Han: BLAM!

Which is what it would have to be in order for it to be equivalent to what you are advocating. Instead, Greedo told Han to give him all his money or he would kill Han.

Han: Over my dead body.
Greedo: That's the idea.
Han: BLAM!

You see, this is an entirely different situation. Furthermore, the scene, as originally shot, shows that Han is NOT a good guy. He's presented as a ruffian, a rogue, a character who is, _at best_, morally gray. Han, throughout the first movie is a greedy, morally bankrupt man - until the very end when he has a character transformation and comes back to help Luke destroy the Death Star.

In truth, the type of character you are arguing for is much more like another character in the cantina: that's right, the guy who attacks Luke and Ben because he doesn't like Luke's face. I'd like to see you come up with any reasonable label for that character other than "psychopath".



> _There are two types of gamers in the world.  The beer and pretzel woohoo Han-shoots-Greedo-first type, and the ballet slippers and bon bons waaah waaah Han-is-a-psychopath type.  Make no mistake, the first type has waaay more fun playing D&D._




Yeah, you keep thinking that. I'm sure that when you have time to actually think about the subject you will realize how silly you sound right now.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that you used the EL/CR guidelines incorrectly. In fact, you reversed the actual rules so that the NPC's win all the time, and the PC's are nothing more than a resource speed bump.




Nope. I used them entirely correctly. The 9th level good party is looking for a EL appropriate challenge. The 5th level evil characters fit the bill perfectly. It is called having a dynamic campaign in which events happen outside the sphere of the PC's control.

Further, it is an actual response to the OPs question, in which he said he _didn't_ want the PCs in his campaign sliding to becoming evil. The best way to do that is to confront evil PCs with the consequences of their choices. If those consequences are simply "you play the same way, just with rape, murder and mayhem", that's not much of a deterrent.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Nope. I used them entirely correctly.



For certain exceedingly small values of correct (apologies to hong...).



> The 9th level good party is looking for a EL appropriate challenge. The 5th level evil characters fit the bill perfectly.



This statement would be correct if the 9th level party were the PC's. In which case the 5th level party should lose and the 9th level group be down %25 of their resources. Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before...

Unfortunately, the situation is reversed. Which makes it a DM-engineered TPK.  

Can you honestly claim that a group of 4 9th level characters is fun, balanced encounter for 4 5th level PC's? 



> It is called having a dynamic campaign in which events happen outside the sphere of the PC's control.



Or having a poor grasp on how the EL guidelines work.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Can you honestly claim that a group of 4 9th level characters is fun, balanced encounter for 4 5th level PC's?




Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.


----------



## Slife (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.



If you want DM controlled characters to be the heroes, go write a novel.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.




I'm with Mallus here, you are making an extremely common misreading of the EL system.  An EL 9 encounter is *not* designed to be a "balanced" encounter for a lvl 9 party.  It was, deliberately, designed to be a walk-over encounter for the lvl 9 party (the idea was 4 EL=party level encounters=1 adventuring day).  Complain about counter-intuitive design if you wish, and you won't be alone in that; but for any reasonable definition of balanced, a 5th lvl party vs a 9th lvl party is, obviously, not balanced.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> If you want DM controlled characters to be the heroes, go write a novel.




Well, the PCs always have the choice not to become notorious murdering cutthroats. Then the world reacts to them differently. I'm not writing the story here, I'm just having the campaign world in which the PCs live react to them in a manner that reflects their own choices. If choices don't have consequences (good or bad), then they aren't really choices now are they?

P.S. If I were writing the story, then the PCs wouldn't become brigands to begin with.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I don't see certain choices as shutting the campaign down




Care to wriggle out of this one, you wascally wabbit? 



			
				Slife said:
			
		

> If you want DM controlled characters to be the heroes, go write a novel.



Don't encourage him.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I'm with Mallus here, you are making an extremely common misreading of the EL system.  An EL 9 encounter is *not* designed to be a "balanced" encounter for a lvl 9 party.  It was, deliberately, designed to be a walk-over encounter for the lvl 9 party (the idea was 4 EL=party level encounters=1 adventuring day).  Complain about counter-intuitive design if you wish, and you won't be alone in that; but for any reasonable definition of balanced, a 5th lvl party vs a 9th lvl party is, obviously, not balanced.




And? And EL 9 encounter is perfectly appropriate for a band of 9th level characters. Nothing in the CR/EL guidelines says that it is exclusively the province of the PCs to face such encounters. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid didn't get to face guys they could defeat when the railroads decided to hire Pinkerton agents to hunt them down.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Care to wriggle out of this one, you wascally wabbit?




Does a campaign _have_ to be fair in order to continue?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, the PCs always have the choice not to become notorious murdering cutthroats.



Ahh..."do it my way, or else"... the very paragon of choices.



> If I were writing the story, then the PCs wouldn't become brigands to begin with.



And the word 'balanced' would mean something other than what it actually means.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Does a campaign _have_ to be fair in order to continue?



Absolutely. Is this a trick question?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Ahh..."do it my way, or else"... the very paragon of choices.




If you decide to become evil, and the world doesn't react to your choice, have to actually made a choice? It seems that you think that alignment choice should be a consequenceless issue. I think you are wrong. The PCs have all kinds of choices, and some of them result in less appetizing consequences than others. Some choices will probably get them killed. That doesn't mean they aren't choices. It just means some choices are not as wise as others.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Is this a trick question?




Well, no. You are just fundamentally wrong.

And I think we have different ideas about what is fair. In one campaign I recall, two different parites started the exact same way. The first thing they (1st level characters) ran across was a sleeping ogre. One party left the ogre alone, and went on to do other things. The other woke him up and tried to kill him. They were all killed. They were shocked when no one rode to their rescue, and no magical method of overcoming the ogre materialized. Their deaths, however, were an entirely normal response to their choice.

Killing the Arbiter is simply waking the ogre up. Don't be surprised if the ogre then kills you.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Well, the PCs always have the choice not to become notorious murdering cutthroats. Then the world reacts to them differently. I'm not writing the story here, I'm just having the campaign world in which the PCs live react to them in a manner that reflects their own choices. If choices don't have consequences (good or bad), then they aren't really choices now are they?
> 
> P.S. If I were writing the story, then the PCs wouldn't become brigands to begin with.




Funny how, if the PCs act as heroes, the world doesn't spontaneously generate NPC heroes powerful enough/pro-active enough to solve its problems, but if the PCs decide to be mean, it generates far more powerful, extremely pro-active heroes.  The obvious, self-sacrificingly heroic act in such a world is to go on a helpless widow and orphan slaughtering spree.

IOW, please don't pretend that you are suggesting that the world react in a simulationist aspect towards the PCSs, when you are obviously suggesting that the DM take out his frustrations on the players.

In this case (and, frankly, for most such cases, which pop up every few months on the boards), it is very possible to read the story as the DM wanted to apply *very* restrictive rules for PC actions, but extremely lenient rules for NPC actions.  The DM then gets frustrated/angered when the PCs treat the NPCs according to their actions, as opposed to the alignment the DM has written down on his character sheets.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 3, 2008)

cr0m said:
			
		

> If I'm the DM, here's what I do. Get the PCs to contact the mother again, via their Speak with Dead spell or other divinations. Go with Vincent being an evil, evil bastard. The child is extremely important. The King *must* know the truth about this child! For some reason that any DM worth his salt can sort out...
> 
> Unfortunately, the King has just declared the PCs outlaws, and all his men are gunning for them. Except for the other Arbiter, but he can't help them directly without risking the same fate.
> 
> ...




Now THAT's a helpful hint.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Funny how, if the PCs act as heroes, the world doesn't spontaneously generate NPC heroes powerful enough/pro-active enough to solve its problems, but if the PCs decide to be mean, it generates far more powerful, extremely pro-active heroes.




That's a flawed assumption on your part. No one said there weren't other heroes in the world. They are just usually busy dealing with other problems. if the PCs become a problem, then they will probably draw the attention of one of these groups. If they go about killing agents of the government, then the government will probably hire one of these groups to deal with them.



> _IOW, please don't pretend that you are suggesting that the world react in a simulationist aspect towards the PCSs, when you are obviously suggesting that the DM take out his frustrations on the players._




Except, of course, you are simply wrong. The campaign world should appear to have a life seperate from the PCs. And that includes having competing groups of heroes. Who are normally potential allies, or mentors, or simply nonhostle rivals. But who will turn against the PCs if they become what the other heroes normally fight against.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It seems that you think that alignment choice should be a consequenceless issue.



I think every alignment should be more-or-less equally playable. Alignment, if used, should describe the tone of the game, not it's relative level of difficultly. _If_ the DM has decreed that certain alignments should be unplayable, or markedly less playable, then it's their responsibility to inform the players up-front, otherwise they're being a prick. 



> You are just fundamentally wrong.



So being deliberately unfair and unbalanced increases player enjoyment (the only meaningful metric for campaign success)? Do tell...


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I think every alignment should be more-or-less equally playable. Alignment, if used, should describe the tone of the game, not it's relative level of difficultly. _If_ the DM has decreed that certain alignments should be unplayable, or markedly less playable, then it's their responsibility to inform the players up-front, otherwise they're being a prick.




Many alignments are _by their very nature_ far less playable for PCs who want to survive. Society almost universally reacts to threats to its peace and security rather harshly. If you become one of those threats, expect the typical response. Expecting something different is assuming that alignment choice is of no consequence, its just "more of the same, just now with rape, murder, and mayhem added!" In other words, you don't appear to believe player choice has any meaning, because the campaign reacts the same way regardless.



> _So being deliberately unfair and unbalanced increases player enjoyment (the only meaningful metric for campaign success)? Do tell..._




If you wake the sleeping ogre, he's likely to kill you.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Is this a trick question?




What? Does everything in the campaign have to be level-appropriate? I wouldn't think so. Player actions can certainly trigger encounters and events that aren't balanced as level-appropriate encounters. 

Granted, there's a difference in play styles here. But it's usually not a good idea to answer "Absolutely" in any discussion about role playing games and campaigns.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I think every alignment should be more-or-less equally playable. Alignment, if used, should describe the tone of the game, not it's relative level of difficultly. _If_ the DM has decreed that certain alignments should be unplayable, or markedly less playable, then it's their responsibility to inform the players up-front, otherwise they're being a prick.




You know, you can be evil and not kill the king's man or be party to the kidnapping of his child. Having the king's other forces crack down on the PCs for that doesn't make any alignment unplayable at all.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's a flawed assumption on your part. No one said there weren't other heroes in the world. They are just usually busy dealing with other problems. if the PCs become a problem, then they will probably draw the attention of one of these groups. If they go about killing agents of the government, then the government will probably hire one of these groups to deal with them.




So, in other words, every PC adventure is a desperate race against time.  Not because of the villain's plans.  Those were never a real threat.  Rather, against high level kill-stealing NPC heroes.  Right?  Because, unless NPCs react very differently to "evil" (and I am *not* calling the OP's case one of evil PCs) PCs and NPCs, that *is* what you are suggesting.



> Except, of course, you are simply wrong. The campaign world should appear to have a life seperate from the PCs. And that includes having competing groups of heroes. Who are normally potential allies, or mentors, or simply nonhostle rivals. But who will turn against the PCs if they become what the other heroes normally fight against.




Of course the campaign world should have a life outside the PCs.  It includes good NPCs *not* spontaneously teleporting to problematic PCs.    That includes NPCs behaving as if they had 2 brain cells to rub together.  It includes NPC authorities *not* getting to call themselves "good" if they behave otherwise if PCs don't get to.  It includes NPCs (unless much higher level) treating PCs with respect.  Etc...

In short, it includes the world behaving fairly towards the PCs, rather than freaking out either when the players call the DM out on his bending the rules, or going somewhat rogue.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> So being deliberately unfair and unbalanced increases player enjoyment (the only meaningful metric for campaign success)? Do tell...




I think you're really misunderstanding part of the definition of fair... which can mean that you get the treatment coming to you without favoritism. If the PCs get away with murder, in a setting where murder is not appropriate, then aren't you showing favoritism... in which case you are being _un_fair?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> What? Does everything in the campaign have to be level-appropriate?



No, but encounters shouldn't be deliberately campaign-ending either, as SR's example was. If you want end the game you're running, just say so, don't try and obscure that with a lot of talk about the fundamental Rousseauvian goodness of D&D societies and their efficiency at eliminating miscreants. 

Then go with your players for drinks.



> Player actions can certainly trigger encounters and events that aren't balanced as level-appropriate encounters.



Sure, but what SR was advocating was a more systematic stamping out of evil PC's, not a specific player-triggered encounter that exceeds normal EL. 



> But it's usually not a good idea to answer "Absolutely" in any discussion about role playing games and campaigns.



Maybe.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Many alignments are _by their very nature_ far less playable for PCs who want to survive.



Nonsense. 

The people playing the game determines how playable a given alignment is. 



> Society almost universally reacts to threats to its peace and security rather harshly.



Society is whatever the DM says it is. Games can be set anywhere; say like a war zone or a state where civil society has broken down.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So, in other words, every PC adventure is a desperate race against time.




Every PC should realize that they have potential competition, yes.

if you think this is somehow out of bounds for D&D, I suggest you go and look at materials written about Gygax's D&D campaigns, and the competitive nature of the various characters. I just figure it should be the same with NPC heroes as well.



> _Of course the campaign world should have a life outside the PCs.  It includes good NPCs *not* spontaneously teleporting to problematic PCs._




No one said they would. They probably will show up eventually though.



> _In short, it includes the world behaving fairly towards the PCs, rather than freaking out either when the players call the DM out on his bending the rules, or going somewhat rogue._




Having the local authorities hire the fantasy equivalent of the Pinkertons is not "freaking out". It is behaving very much fairly.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> _Nonsense.
> 
> The people playing the game determines how playable a given alignment is._




Well, yes. People can play a D&D game in which there are no real consequences for the choices the PCs make. If you want to run a game in which murder, rape and assorted mayhem draw no appropriate consequences, then do so. It would be seriously flawed, in my opinion, because society has pretty much universally defended itself against that sort of behaviour with harsh penalties, so leaving those harsh penalties out basically means you are playing "consequencless, choiceless D&D"..



> _Society is whatever the DM says it is. Games can be set anywhere; say like a war zone or a state where civil society has broken down._




Even in frontier societies and war zones society society defends itself against criminality and vile behaviour. In many cases, the penalties for behaving evilly are _worse_ in those areas, because there is no countervailing push for mercy as opposed to simple justice.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> No, but encounters shouldn't be deliberately campaign-ending either, as SR's example was. If you want end the game you're running, just say so, don't try and obscure that with a lot of talk about the fundamental Rousseauvian goodness of D&D societies and their efficiency at eliminating miscreants.




Except they are only campaign ending if you expect the characters to get away with their evil behaviour and not suffer a penalty for it. Anbd expect that they will be able to defeat those sent against them. I, again, refer to the Butch Cassidy example - the Pinkertons were far out of their league, yet the "campaign" (movie, in that case) didn't end. They simply had to run away and stay on the run. No one ever said life as an evil PC was easy.



> _Sure, but what SR was advocating was a more systematic stamping out of evil PC's, not a specific player-triggered encounter that exceeds normal EL._




When the PC's become villains, they become the encounter.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, *don't expect fairness.*




Emphasis mine, to which I would respond:  This is a game; fairness should always be expected, even demanded.

SR, you're fighting an uphill battle here, particular when you make statements like this.  I'm not saying you meant it this way, but perhaps you can see why it might remind me of a child who threatens to take his toys away when his friends don't play the way he wants?

It's that attitude that Mallus and others are rejecting.  One doesn't have to allow evil PCs in play, but if the situation arises it should still be dealt with fairly.  Let me tell you, having bungled a few games myself, that players do not really appreciate when DMs try and teach them lessons.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Having the local authorities hire the fantasy equivalent of the Pinkertons is not "freaking out". It is behaving very much fairly.




But then, why are the PCs having *any* adventures at all?  A world in which uppity PCs get unceremoniously offed is a world without adventuring opportunities, because those opportunities also got unceremoniously offed.

Let us be honest here: the OP's PCs whacked an, at best, morally grey person.  Once the second arbitrator showed up and acted the way he did, the kingdom has a *whole* lot of explaining to do if it wants the title of "not evil".  The DM is running the NPCs as being neutral to evil, and complaining when the players treat them as such.  That isn't being fair.

Further, the PCs whacked one of the the kingdom's elite: there *aren't* a slew of Pinkertons available to hire.  That has been established.  Spontaneously generating high level do-gooders to whack the PCs wouldn't be fair in either their spontaneous generation, *or* their targeting of the PCs (who might be violent, but haven't acted all that evilly if evilly at all).

If you actually think you are running a self-consistent world, you should probably go back and review your assumptions.  From my side of the computer screen, it really looks like a vengeful DM advocating the execution of PCs that stray from the rails (and unfair rails at that, where NPCs get to act evilly without alignment modifications but PCs eat alignment changes for the most subjective of acts).


----------



## hamishspence (Apr 3, 2008)

*Evil and good in game*

"I want my kid back" is not an insult. Its a statement.

While the initial post didn't mention any specific threats, its possible that they were made in game but not mentioned here. Did the Arbitor say "you will give me my kid back Or Else?" Unspecified threat: PC's might be expected to ready themselves, though pre-emptive strikes might be uncalled for.

Baldur's Gate game has guards appear when PCs attack NPC's first. This is a default reaction. On the other hand an NPC can "Go hostile" before actually attacking. They will be advancing weapons drawn though. Killing even the most annoying (Noober) NPCs will lower reputation.

It was mentioned that the PCs will draw weapons in a fistfight. Thats sounds a lot like Belkar in _On the Origin of PCs_ "They shouldn't have brought fists to a knife-fight" "It wasn't a knife-fight until you started stabbing people!" "My point exactly."

It is possible (rare) to play Evil, heroic characters. These are the guys who resort to nasty tactics against enemies, the people who kill innocents for a "good cause" torture bad guys, etc. A lot like the _Angel_ TV series. Or many others. The question is, do the players want to play that sort of game?

I'd say discuss it with players. Even the _Munchkin_ D20 game has suggestions for making it clear to players that killing NPCs, especially high ranking ones, is generally not a good idea.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> But then, why are the PCs having *any* adventures at all?  A world in which uppity PCs get unceremoniously offed is a world without adventuring opportunities, because those opportunities also got unceremoniously offed.




Just because the world gets around to dealing with threats that happen to be PCs doesn't mean that threats don't exist. You seem to be assuming that there's a finite amount of "threat" in the world, and once it is gone, then everything becomes bunnies and roses.



> _Let us be honest here: the OP's PCs whacked an, at best, morally grey person.  Once the second arbitrator showed up and acted the way he did, the kingdom has a *whole* lot of explaining to do if it wants the title of "not evil".  The DM is running the NPCs as being neutral to evil, and complaining when the players treat them as such.  That isn't being fair._




You seem to be making a bunch of assumptions here. The most important being that the second individual who identified himself as an Arbiter actually _is_ an Arbiter, and that his discussion with the PCs is actually bona fide, and that his offer to the PCs is actually one which is consistent with his own authority. None of these things are necessarily true.



> _Further, the PCs whacked one of the the kingdom's elite: there *aren't* a slew of Pinkertons available to hire.  That has been established.  Spontaneously generating high level do-gooders to whack the PCs wouldn't be fair in either their spontaneous generation, *or* their targeting of the PCs (who might be violent, but haven't acted all that evilly if evilly at all)._




That's another huge assumption. How do you know that there aren't a couple dozen other Arbiters spread through the kingdom who would join togeher to bring justice to those who attacked and murdered one of their own (how much effort do policemen put into catching cop-killers)? Or that there aren't other parties of heroes looking to pick up a reward? You simply assume that there aren't any others, based upon no evidence of any sort.

And I dispute your "they haven't acted evilly" claim. They have engaged in two very clearly evil acts, one of which was directed at the government itself. You keep making the claim that the PCs haven't acted evilly, when it is pretty clear they have, and (your moral contortions and unwarranted assumptions notwithstanding), that pretty much eliminates any credibility you might have.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Anbd expect that they will be able to defeat those sent against them.



A campaign won't last long if the DM keeps using opponents the player cannot reasonably defeat -- regardless of the player choices that might have precipitated the situation. Note that I am full of keen observations and practical advice.  



> I, again, refer to the Butch Cassidy example - the Pinkertons were far out of their league, yet the "campaign" (movie, in that case) didn't end.



I see you're changing your tune a wee bit. Instead of a powerful good-aligned party 'slaughtering' the PC's, they're just giving chase. That's significantly better. I could get on board with that, so long as the DM wasn't just railroading the group into the actual finale of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  



> No one ever said life as an evil PC was easy.



No PC's life if easy. If they're saints you attack them with Devils. If they're sinners you bedevil them with flights of angels. If they're neutral there's always thugs, pirates and dinosaurs. You'll note this ties right back in with my team jersey analogy from earlier... 



			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Let me tell you, having bungled a few games myself, that players do not really appreciate when DMs try and teach them lessons.



So you've noticed that too?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine, to which I would respond:  This is a game; fairness should always be expected, even demanded.




Good heroes aren't necessarily entitled to fairness either. If the 4th level PCs decide to trek up the mountain to face the dragon with the legendary reputation, and find a CR 21 monster up there, they may not survive the experience. Choice requires that some options have negative consequences, otherwise you are just engaged in a secret railroad. Engaging in murder and mayhem is pretty much the equivalent to waking the sleeping ogre, and drawing his ire upon your head. Killing the king's man is pretty much the equivalent of taking on the legendary dragon.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> A campaign won't last long if the DM keeps using opponents the player cannot reasonably defeat -- regardless of the player choices that might have precipitated the situation. Note that I am full of keen observations and practical advice.




Then maybe the players shouldn't have put themselves in that position then.

Choices = consequences.



> _I see you're changing your tune a wee bit. Instead of a powerful good-aligned party 'slaughtering' the PC's, they're just giving chase. That's significantly better. I could get on board with that, so long as the DM wasn't just railroading the group into the actual finale of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid._




What do you think the Pinkertons would have done had they caught them? Given them puppies and kittens? I said a group of 9th level PCs would likely hunt them down, and the PCs would probably get slaughtered. The key here is probably, not certainly. Note that Butch and Sundance later drew the ire of the Bolivian army, and were trapped and killed in what you must think is a most unfair way. That's life (or the end of life) as an evildoer though.



> _No PC's life if easy. If they're saints you attack them with Devils. If their sinners you bedevil them with flights of angels. If they're neutral there's always thugs, pirates and dinosaurs. You'll note this ties right back in with my team jersey analogy from earlier... _




And if they are evil, they have limited resources to fall back upon, since society isnt likely to be very supportive of those who fight against the angels, and will probably actively seek to hinder them. Hence, life as an evil PC is usually short and somewhat exciting.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Then maybe the players shouldn't have put themselves in that position then.



Or the DM shouldn't decide to make the consequences unplayable and/or campaign ending. That works too, and it has the added benefit of not pissing off the players.



> Note that Butch and Sundance later drew the ire of the Bolivian army, and were trapped and killed in what you must think is a most unfair way.



I think the ending of BC&tSK is wonderful. I also think it's a film and not an on-going D&D campaign, so different criteria apply when considering how fair it is. 



> That's life (or the end of life) as an evildoer though.



Unless you've been watching The Usual Suspects, in which case the evildoer makes the authorities look like fools and then gets off scot-free. There are more thing in Heaven and Earth dear SR than imagined in your poor, apparently homogeneously good fictional universes.



> And if they are evil, they have limited resources to fall back upon...



Sez who? Every D&D setting I've ever seen is effectively Manichean, where both good and evil have elaborate institutional support, with plenty of partisans to be found no matter what color jersey your PC is wearing. Hell, even the common thieves are unionized in most games.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Killing the king's man is pretty much the equivalent of taking on the legendary dragon.



Only if the DM has decided to end the campaign.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 3, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Good heroes aren't necessarily entitled to fairness either. If the 4th level PCs decide to trek up the mountain to face the dragon with the legendary reputation, and find a CR 21 monster up there, they may not survive the experience. Choice requires that some options have negative consequences, otherwise you are just engaged in a secret railroad.




Now you're sort of getting into the topic of world building and adventure creation, which is different than what I was talking about.

As a DM, I'm interested in giving my players as much choice as possible.  I provide that choice by presenting hooks, letting the players go where they please, and filling in the blanks.  If my PCs somehow got the impression that going after the great wyrm of Black Mountain was a good idea, then I share the blame as much as they do.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Killing the king's man is pretty much the equivalent of taking on the legendary dragon.




Imagine if the king sends 2, 4, heck even 8 of these Arbitors after the PCs.  Now imagine that the PCs defeated them.  What then?  The king looks weak, having lost some of his most powerful and influential men to a trio of mercenaries.  How will the people look to his rulership then.  Put yourself in the NPC's shoes for a second; he has to be careful of these three PCs, lest he look like a total weakling and get usurped or beheaded by rioting peasants.  He has to be careful the way he responds as well, you know.

I'm not saying there can't be consequences.  But those consequences should not be "You have not played the game I wanted you to play, therefore you will now fight an encounter 10 levels above you.  Have fun."


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Only if the DM has decided to end the campaign.




How is this not non-sequitor? 

Technically, killing the king's man _may_ be equivalent to taking on the legendary dragon depending on the king's resources and whether or not he feels he can suffer the attack on his authority.
In other words, you may get different responses depending on whether you killed some who respresents the authority of the Roman Emperor or the constitutional monarch of Norway.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 3, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> How is this not non-sequitor?



Err, easily?

The DM determines the level of response for the killing of the King's Man. He can use the incident as a jumping-off point for future plot lines. Or he could go the CR21 route and decide to bring overwhelming force against the PC's and end the campaign. Why do consider that to be a non-sequitor?



> In other words, you may get different responses depending on whether you killed some who represents the authority of the Roman Emperor or the constitutional monarch of Norway.



The relative power of the King is irrelevant. He's just a plot device. The only thing that matters is the DM's willingness to continue the current narrative. Everything else can be written around.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 3, 2008)

Talk about extremes being discussed here.

It seems either NPCs should be played as helpful and polite all the time to PCs and if they don't then they are jerks . Or if one NPCs is a jerk then that means all the DMs NPCs are jerks.

I wanted to take this from a role playing aspect so from here on everything I say is based on that. Beer and pretzels are games is different and a lot of this is not an issue in those kind of games.

In a RP game you try and play your PC with some kind of consistency so if you are a paladin you try and play a paladin all the time not a blackguard when it is convient. Part of RP a paladin is trying to stick to your code. You try and give your character motivations on why they do things.

NPCs should be played the same way they have motivations that make them behave in a certain way. For example in my game a high level cleric of St Cutbert does not like non humans. He is curt with them which some could take as rudness. Now according to some people here I should not play him that way once my non human PCs get a certain level because that would make him a jerk and the PCs should be able to kill for being that way with no consquences.

The world should be filed just like ours with all kinds of people some helpful, some indifferent and some are just jerks. How you respond to them is called role playing. Now if you are playing a paladin and some NPCs is rude to you calls you a name if you play your paaldin as lawful good I doubt you will pull your weapon and slay him. You might grab him and tell him off, you might backhand and tell him to shut his face or just might prove that you are better than him and ignore him.

The CE wizard might handle it differently he might do something nasty to the NPC. Both are valid role playing choices.

Actions in role playing games have consquences which is what makes the game fun because you influence the world by your actions.

Now the by standers watching the paladin handle the man who insulted him by using no violence might find the town opening up to him and trusting him. 

The wizard may find himself on the wrong side of the law or have the entire town quivering at his feet.  

I think the issues comes up when in a RP game DMs play all the NPCs the same. I hate playing in a game where every NPC I meet hates me and his rude and unhelpful. It frustrates me because it does not make any sense.  When a DM does this I can see why the players just want to kill and maim every NPC they meet.

There should be a reason why NPCs treat the PCs as they do. In my game my PCs are committed to helping others so they have a repuation of being good people. In the one town they were in the NPCs bent over backwards to treat them good. They gave then free room and food. They even lied to protect these PCs. 

They are treated like this because of the way the players play their PCs. They are polite, they help with asking to be paid and they don't advantage of the people they are helping.

But in the bigger city where they are not known the spellscale and drow have met with some bigotry. They have been refused service at some taverns. "We don't want that kind here" 

There is a reason for the ingame bigotry all the players knew it when some of them made non human characters as a matter of fact that was part of the motivation for them.

Now how they handle this bigtory will decide  what happens next with it. So far the non humans have stoically accepted it. The humans in the party are the ones getting upset and telling people off. If things go as hoped this band of heroes will save the day in a big way as they get higher level and I doubt people will be refusing them service then.

All the interactions are based on character motivations not because I am being a jerk to my players.    

The other issue is how players play their PC if they play them as special snowflakes who think that because they are PCs they are special and can treat the NPCs badly without amy consquences the game suffers. The DM plays the NPCs motivations as becoming more hostile based on the PCs actions and the PCs get more and more violent with the NPCs.

As a player you have to ask yourself would you character kill a man just because he looked at me funny and I can get away with it because he is only a NPC.

If you want to play a character who gets that kind of rep that is cool after awhile no NPC will look at you funny but on the other hand no NPC is going to be really helpful either. it is a trade off. You can't expect to play a PC like that and still have an easy time getting help from NPCs. 

If you are role playing you should not bring metagaming nased on levels into the game. Sure at 15 level you can take on all the city guard and maybe wipe out the King but what possible role playing motive would you have for doing so.  Why would you choose to derail the game that way.

You also have to look at what a defination of hero is. Just because you go and slay the trolls that have been attacking caverns does not make you a hero. If you do it and are paid handsomley for the task and then come back to town and take what you want and mistreat the townfolk they won't look at you as a hero they will look at you an necessary evil and be thankful when you leave and hope that they don't need you again.

If you expect your PC to be treated with repect then you need to behave in  a way to get it.  The same goes for NPCs as well.

That cleric of St Cuthbert I mentioned from my game was like an older brother to the cleric in my game. It is being role played out how much respect the cleric has lost ofr this NPC. It has caused some painful conversations between the two. 

As for the argument that if you have evil PCs having good NPCs go after them is not being fair. I have to say bull. Part of being evil means the good guys come after you. The same way the evil guys go after good PCs.

It should be done fairly though. The encounter should be the right level of the PCs party. The same as you would do if your PCs were good going after evil.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 3, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> [long post]
> 
> Foreword: _I am not strict with alignments.  _ As I see alignments they are more or less 'goals'.  A small act of evil doesn't make someone evil.  However I think my PCs are killing without fear of consequences, and still putting on the facsade that they are a GOOD party (namely because their class requires it).  I want them to either drop the facsade or repent, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to do it in my situation.
> 
> ...



And they weren't all (possibly including the NPC) court-martialed and executed because...?


----------



## doghead (Apr 4, 2008)

general - murderous PC's

I think a few posters here need to step back and cool down. Neither side is going to convince the other. Both sides have presented their positions and now are just going back and forth over the same ground. Let it go.

doghead
aka thotd


----------



## moritheil (Apr 13, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Make sure you play up the consequences of their action.  If they are just killing people for being rude, or busting out weapons and lethal magic in bar brawls then the law is gonna get on their ass eventually.  It can be hard to successfully adventure when you get a bad reputation and can't sell off loot, hire guides and other hirelings, are wanted by the law wherever you go, and have the family/friends/associates of people you've killed trying to kill _you _ all the time.




Seconded.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 13, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Err, easily?
> 
> The DM determines the level of response for the killing of the King's Man. He can use the incident as a jumping-off point for future plot lines. Or he could go the CR21 route and decide to bring overwhelming force against the PC's and end the campaign. Why do consider that to be a non-sequitor?
> 
> ...




Your fundamental assumption here seems to be that this is explicitly run as a game for the benefit of the players, rather than a simulation of a world, and that preserving this game is the highest priority.  That is, you are assuming that metagame concerns can and should override all others.

Now, within those assumptions you are correct.  But I know of many DMs who would rather keep their world consistent even if it meant letting the campaign end.  There is also the (equally metagame) idea that they need to show willingness to have consequences for the PCs in one game so that others do not devolve into an orgy of wanton killing and destruction.

So in short, not everyone is going in with the assumption that preserving the game is the highest priority.


----------



## Herobizkit (Apr 13, 2008)

The players were told by a dead woman that the Arbiter was not to have her child.  The Arbiter commanded the PC's to hand the child over to him.  The PC's tried to reason with the Arbiter, and failed.  This left three choices: Fight, Flee, or Surrender.  The PCs chose to Fight, and won.  They burned the body to conceal their "crime", and next encounter, much higher NPC soldiers appear to defeat the PCs.

I have a number of questions about this scenario.

* How (and how quickly) did the King's Men find out about Vincent's death?
* How (and how quickly) were they able to successfully ID and track the PCs?
* Are the local laws just, or is there a veneer of law to a corrupt government?  I am of the opnion that any totalitarian-type government is open to corruption by definition; a system of Law that restricts the basic rights of its people "because we say so" is Lawful, but definitely NOT Good.

Given the above, I would think that the clever PCs COULD have fought to subdue, but they would have ended up in the same boat, and so they preferred to do what they felt had to be done until more information could have been uncovered.  Clever-er PC's may also have demanded that they hold the child until such a time as that non-magical proof of the Arbiter's fatherhood could be produced - magic can be flawed, and since the PC's already knew the answer, the burden of proof would have fallen on the Arbiter.  At worst, the PC's would have been carted into court and an investigation be launched into the reasoning behind the wife's desire to prevent the Arbiter from claiming the child.

But that's not how it went down.

And so, my question is this: Where are the high-powered "Evil" people the players can go to for assistance?


----------



## hamishspence (Apr 14, 2008)

*Rebels?*

Maybe there is a CN/CG Rebellion that the players could get in contact with. Or they could start their own.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 14, 2008)

You know, in reality, many beat few.  That is to say, when you remove the nastier forms of force-multiplication (few beat many when the few have armor and close air support), when you put a small band of elites against a large band of almost elites, or a really large group of competents, numbers win.  The results of this is that in our world, people who large groups of people listen to are the ones with power.

In D&D, in the realm of combat, this is laughably untrue.  Not only can the upper end of the elites massacre a wide swathe through the competents, they can also completely bypass them, hop over to their leader, give him a wedgie, and leave.  The mental equations of power we are used to are utterly different.  Suddenly, things like guest-hospitality become critically important; anything that makes an archmage decide, "Oh, damn, I killed a baron, now I have to slaughter the entire kingdom or I'll never get a moment's peace." is not a survival trait for a soceity.

Imagine, for a moment, a news story about a bunch of bank robbers who were, as they left the bank, ambushed by a full SWAT team with police backup and sniper support.  Imagine that the robbers killed everyone and moved on, and are now at large.  Now imagine that this scene was repeated multiple times, with escalation up to the level of direct military force, and that said force had been met with overwhelming response each time.  Said robbers would be met with fear, disdain, and hatred, this is for certain.  But I don't think that, if they happened to be on barrista duties and the robbers strolled in and ordered a round of mochas, most people would do anything than quietly serve up the mochas and try to be invisible until they left.  In D&D, there exists the very strong possibility that the individual causing problems is in and of himself a greater force than the entirety of local law enforcement.  PCs, as pointed out, should best be considered armor battalions past a certain level; my own personal metaphor is dragons.  That is to say, if a hostile dragon shows up, the question is not "How much damage will it cause before it is slain?" but "Will any of us survive?"

Now remember what happens when PCs and dragons fight, and adjust your mental scales accordingly.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> In D&D, in the realm of combat, this is laughably untrue.  Not only can the upper end of the elites massacre a wide swathe through the competents, they can also completely bypass them, hop over to their leader, give him a wedgie, and leave.  The mental equations of power we are used to are utterly different.  Suddenly, things like guest-hospitality become critically important; anything that makes an archmage decide, "Oh, damn, I killed a baron, now I have to slaughter the entire kingdom or I'll never get a moment's peace." is not a survival trait for a soceity.
> 
> Imagine, for a moment, a news story about a bunch of bank robbers who were, as they left the bank, ambushed by a full SWAT team with police backup and sniper support.  Imagine that the robbers killed everyone and moved on, and are now at large.  Now imagine that this scene was repeated multiple times, with escalation up to the level of direct military force, and that said force had been met with overwhelming response each time.  Said robbers would be met with fear, disdain, and hatred, this is for certain.  But I don't think that, if they happened to be on barrista duties and the robbers strolled in and ordered a round of mochas, most people would do anything than quietly serve up the mochas and try to be invisible until they left.  In D&D, there exists the very strong possibility that the individual causing problems is in and of himself a greater force than the entirety of local law enforcement.  PCs, as pointed out, should best be considered armor battalions past a certain level; my own personal metaphor is dragons.  That is to say, if a hostile dragon shows up, the question is not "How much damage will it cause before it is slain?" but "Will any of us survive?"
> 
> Now remember what happens when PCs and dragons fight, and adjust your mental scales accordingly.




This line of thinking is only valid if you believe that the PCs are special snowflakes in the campaign world. It is also probably only true if the campaign world is poorly designed. The people in power in a D&D reality would be the people who can stay in power. Anyone who couldn't deal with a pack of miscreant adventurers would be replaced in short order by someone who could (or by the miscreants themselves). If the ruler doesn't have the resources to deal with a murderous archmage, or random groups of wild adventurers, he's not going to last.

If the campaign world is worked out to any reasonable extent, then those in power will be in power for a _reason_, and that reason has to include answers to the questions (a) how did they get into power, and (b) how to they hold on to power. If those two questions aren't answered in some way, then the world will probably appear to make little sense to anyone who spends more than a minute or two thinking about it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 14, 2008)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> No idea about evilness, but the illegality is irrefutable.  They're criminals.  Start putting up bounty notices and bounty hunters everywhere they go.



Paladin's powers go 'bye bye'. If they are caught then have them tried and sentenced. If found guilty, which they most likely will, then have them hanged. Tell them about the merchants selling rotten vegetables to throw at them while they slowly strangle. Let them die, covered in stinking vegetables. Let them know that getting hit with a cabbage while they slowly swing side to side still _hurts._

Have the Paladin wake up in the Abyss being tortured for his sins. This may get the point across. Let the torturing demon tell the ex-paladin that his god handed him over personally for his actions. 'Not often we get one of _your_ kind around here, but always worth it when we do. 'Course Bubba here doesn't like the look of your face. That's why he's got the knives'.

Seems pretty straight forward to me....

And no, I am not joking much here. Maybe expanding on the theme for hyperbolic effect, but not joking. Actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences result in a TPK. I once had a party hanged for killing an orc - when the local baron had a peace treaty to maintain. I told them about the orc widow and orphans... and how willing the baron was to let this band of strangers die to show that he honored the treaty.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Imp (Apr 14, 2008)

aaaagh what a long thread. 

a) I can't think of much of any setting aside from dawn-of-the-heroic-age-classical, barbaric, or else extremely campy, where going off and killing the king's man in the heat of the moment doesn't arouse the king's ire, duelling traditions entirely nonwithstanding; and

b) nobody in all these pages seems to have thought of this angle (if I missed you, apologies, it is really a very long thread): this King is surely not the king of everything, is he? There are neighboring kingdoms, enemies of the kingdom? Future allies of outlaw players?

Good lord, travel should be an option here.

I think where I'd go with this is to have the PCs play outlaw for a bit, and if they do a good enough job, they'll attract the attention of somebody on an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend basis, and this somebody can go send the PCs on a quest to find the magic whatsit in the heart of the mountain far far away from the kingdom where the king wants their heads.

"Oh, yeah. I can't go back to the Kingdom of Whazzamore. You see, they want my head." This is always fun to say.

And the business with the guys with the blue circles being nice to the guys in the plate armor and the big swords, especially now that they are wanted dead or alive in (at least one) kingdom.

(Pally would at least have some trouble with his powers. It's no fun having a ganked character for a long campaign, though, so try and have a way out for him so he can get some commensurate powers back if you decide to strip his paladinhood.)


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This line of thinking is only valid if you believe that the PCs are special snowflakes in the campaign world. It is also probably only true if the campaign world is poorly designed. The people in power in a D&D reality would be the people who can stay in power. Anyone who couldn't deal with a pack of miscreant adventurers would be replaced in short order by someone who could (or by the miscreants themselves). If the ruler doesn't have the resources to deal with a murderous archmage, or random groups of wild adventurers, he's not going to last.
> 
> If the campaign world is worked out to any reasonable extent, then those in power will be in power for a _reason_, and that reason has to include answers to the questions (a) how did they get into power, and (b) how to they hold on to power. If those two questions aren't answered in some way, then the world will probably appear to make little sense to anyone who spends more than a minute or two thinking about it.




Well, given that the general status of D&D worlds sans adventurers taking specific action tends to be exactly "A great threat gathers, the existing forces of civilization are unable to beat it back, darkness conquers all, and evil rules the land.", I'd say that it's not so much poor design as default expectations.  In fact, many D&D worlds explicitly answer the question "Why hasn't Evil X destroyed the world?" with "It has in the past.  If you want to avoid the next generation of adventurers picking over the ruins of your cities and looting your dead for items, you'll stop it."

Basically, as pointed out previously, a world in which there aren't immediate, dire, and (most importantly) currently-uncombated threats to innocent life and limb is both a non-stable world, and the default expectation of a D&D world.

Besides, even if the expectation is that there are enough true-blue heroes to keep the darkest evil from destroying everything, the difference between survival and prosperity can be entirely based on how the local power structure treats adventurers.  Adventurers both perform valuable services and tend to result in a massive influx of wealth and coinage; logic suggests that a population center that explicitly errs on the side of making adventurers welcome and comfortable may well suffer problems from the morally-grey (and morally-black-but mostly-kills-evil-people) adventuring population, but the rapid response time in between orcs setting up a fort and raiding the roads and said fort being reduced to ash burnt too thoroughly to smolder, and according minimization of loss, will well balance it out.  Indeed, in a situation in which the marginal matters (such as when snubbing a single easily-offended adventurer can shift the economic balance of a region as he and his druid buddy decide to increase the food production of antagonistic states by 133%), "Yeah, he's an evil murderous bastard, but we're better off with him killing mostly them than they and him both killing us."

To continue the metaphor, a nation with a high adventurer population is like a nation surrounded by other nations with distinctly non-Euclidian borders.  If a nation provokes you, you may well respond diplomatically, or militarily, if you are powerful enough.  However, this response costs you; responding to every border incident will bleed you dry.  It doesn't matter if the court wizard is level 15 and the adventurers making trouble are only level 10; yes, the court wizard will catch and trounce them, but not before horrible damage has been wrought.  And once adventurers get it into their heads that the only way to survive making trouble in your kingdom is to ensure that you and your political structure don't, you'll see a lot of minor incidents blow up horribly.  Unless your power differential is truly titanic (say, between that of the U.S. government and your average criminal gang), responding to every threat and provocation gets you...

Well, to bring it back to the original example, it eventually gets you into a fight you can't win.  For all cases not N (where N = Pun-Pun), there is always a bigger fish: this applies to both states and individuals, and can be either.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Your fundamental assumption here seems to be that this is explicitly run as a game for the benefit of the players...



Yes.



> ...rather than a simulation of a world, and that preserving this game is the highest priority.



Any simulation aspects of the game --if present at all-- have to be in service of entertaining the players. If not, it's just the DM masturbating. In public. 



> That is, you are assuming that metagame concerns can and should override all others.



Yes. Assuming that the metagame concern you're talking about is the players having fun.



> Now, within those assumptions you are correct.



Yes.



> But I know of many DMs who would rather keep their world consistent...



They're masturbating. In public. 



> So in short, not everyone is going in with the assumption that preserving the game is the highest priority.



Sure. But if the OP didn't want to keep playing, the topic of the thread would have been 'How can I leave a campaign that I'm running gracefully?'.


----------



## Slife (Apr 14, 2008)

Just chiming in to say that "for the players' enjoyment" should include the DM as a subset of players.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Have the Paladin wake up in the Abyss being tortured for his sins.






> I once had a party hanged for killing an orc




Man, you are a grump...

Seriously though, at the point this starts sounding like good DM'ing advice, shouldn't you just lay off D&D for a while and go drinking with your mates instead?


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 14, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Paladin's powers go 'bye bye'. If they are caught then have them tried and sentenced. If found guilty, which they most likely will, then have them hanged. Tell them about the merchants selling rotten vegetables to throw at them while they slowly strangle. Let them die, covered in stinking vegetables. Let them know that getting hit with a cabbage while they slowly swing side to side still _hurts._
> 
> Have the Paladin wake up in the Abyss being tortured for his sins. This may get the point across. Let the torturing demon tell the ex-paladin that his god handed him over personally for his actions. 'Not often we get one of _your_ kind around here, but always worth it when we do. 'Course Bubba here doesn't like the look of your face. That's why he's got the knives'.
> 
> ...




"OK.  McBard, you head down to Swadia and the Nord Kingdom.  See if you can't stir up some good old-fashioned hatred of Vaygers, here.  And don't forget to lay the blood libel on thick for the Nords; if we can get a natural border skirmish to blow up naturally, we won't have to engineer one.  Wiz, put on your artificer hat for a while; when the war comes, we're going to need wands and scrolls, and plenty of both.  When you're not doing that, see if you can't conjure up a few succubi; McBard's gotten us a list of a few nobles who could benefit from a little persuasion.  Druidia, you're going to be the prime mover in this operation.  Hit as much farmland as you can with Reduce Plants, and don't be afraid to take out any targets of opportunity while you're wildshaped.  Heck, a few good firestorms during the summer months will do more than any spell.  Well, any spell under eighth level.  Sorcy, go look up Xitheras Brightflame, the Black Baron, that grimlock band...heck, anyone still alive that's willing to raise hell for coin.  If it's a fight Vaygers wants, it's a massacre it will have!"

As you say, actions have consequenses.  One of the consequences of enforcing consequences is that eventually, you run into someone who takes umbrage to you and has the means and motive to bring about your ruin.  This can be the Watch arresting an apprentice wizard, or it can be an archmage shattering a city during his coffee break.

But really, most of the consequences will be less dramatic than that.  An area that discourages adventurers will have fewer adventurers; depending on the ratio of threat to potential civic response, this can mean anything from fewer random assaults, a more stable currency base, and taverns and brothels suffering an economic downturn, to Bubba the aforementioned demon being able to take a brief break to Plane Shift to the prime and reap a few thousand souls for his personal use.  Again, it's not just about the harm the adventures cause; its also about the harm they prevent.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This line of thinking is only valid if you believe that the PCs are special snowflakes in the campaign world.



Well they are the protagonists after all...



> It is also probably only true if the campaign world is poorly designed. The people in power in a D&D reality would be the people who can stay in power.



So a campaign world is logical and well designed only if every criminal act is punished?



> Anyone who couldn't deal with a pack of miscreant adventurers would be replaced in short order by someone who could...



Perhaps the kingdom's military is currently stretched thin... say by a costly foreign war.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Basically, as pointed out previously, a world in which there aren't immediate, dire, and (most importantly) currently-uncombated threats to innocent life and limb is both a non-stable world, and the default expectation of a D&D world.




I don't think that is the default expectation of _any_ published D&D campaign world other than maybe Midnight (which has its own unique way of dealing with players who get out of hand). Greyhawk? Nope. Forgotten Realms? Nope. Eberron? Nope. Oathbound? Nope. Kalamar? Nope. Scarred Lands? Nyambe? Rokugan? Nope, nope, and nope.

Sure, there are threats in those game worlds, but in almost all of them, the reason no one is combating the enemies is because they haven't gotten to it yet, they don't care, they have other things to deal with first (but they will get to it later, maybe), or any number of other reasons. In most game worlds, there are a variety of individuals and groups with significant power _other_ than the PCs. In most, there are plenty with more power than the PCs will have through, at the very least, most of the course of play.

In my experience, home brew game worlds that are set up to have "dire threats no one can deal with but the PCs" tend to not work very well. That's a decent set up for a fantasy _novel_, but as a campaign world, it just doesn't work - there are too many variables, the biggest being the PCs. But a campaign world is not a fantasy novel. The main characters don't always win, the villain doesn't always lose, and the evil threat isn't always a big threat to the world.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Well they are the protagonists after all...




Your point being?

In a Fantasy Role-Playing _Game_ the protagonists don't always win. They sometimes lose, and sometimes get killed, even wiped out. If that can't happen, why bother rolling dice and pretending that the players are making meaningful decisions to begin with? Just say "well, you're the players, so you win!"



> _So a campaign world is logical and well designed only if every criminal act is punished?_




No. Only if the people in power have the means to stay in power. People who let mercenaries run rampant, killing other soldiers and their emmissaries don't last in power long. They get replaced by someone who has the power to prevent that sort of problem. Quickly.



> _Perhaps the kingdom's military is currently stretched thin... say by a costly foreign war._




That is usually when military discipline and criminal enforcement are at their most stringent. Those in power know that showing weakness then means they won't stay in power long.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> But really, most of the consequences will be less dramatic than that.  An area that discourages adventurers will have fewer adventurers; depending on the ratio of threat to potential civic response, this can mean anything from fewer random assaults, a more stable currency base, and taverns and brothels suffering an economic downturn, to Bubba the aforementioned demon being able to take a brief break to Plane Shift to the prime and reap a few thousand souls for his personal use.  Again, it's not just about the harm the adventures cause; its also about the harm they prevent.




We aren't talking about discouraging adventurers. We are talking about discouraging murderous cutthroats. The PCs in question have engaged in murder of people under the authority of the government multiple times already. I think that just about any government is going to want to discourage people like that from hanging around. There are probably other adventurers out there who are willing to forego the pleasure of going on murder sprees, and those are going to be the ones desired and rewarded.

Heck, those are the adventurers who will probably be hunting down the murderous cutthroats.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Seriously though, at the point this starts sounding like good DM'ing advice, shouldn't you just lay off D&D for a while and go drinking with your mates instead?




Actually, his campaign world sounds like it would be much more interesting and enjoyable than any one that would be run the way you have suggested.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Yes.




No. The game is run for the enjoyment of the players _and the DM_. In many ways _most importantly_ the DM. The game can go on without some of the players. The game without the DM grinds to a halt.



> _Any simulation aspects of the game --if present at all-- have to be in service of entertaining the players. If not, it's just the DM masturbating. In public._




You are completely, and 100% wrong. The DM must derive enjoyment from the game too, and those simulation aspects may very well do that. Your posts make me think you have _never_ acted as a DM for any length of time.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 14, 2008)

I don't understand the idea that only the players fun matters and that the DM should for the sake of the game give up what makes it fun for him to DM. 


Yes if the players don't like the game they will quit but the same is true if the DM does not enjoy running the game then he will quit as well.

Mallus says Any simulation aspects of the game --if present at all-- have to be in service of entertaining the players. If not, it's just the DM masturbating. In public. 

What a very selfish way to look at it. I think it is time for some players to stop behaving like spoiled children and learn to play nice and share the fun. Because it should not always be about the players.

You are all there to have fun the DM puts a lot of work in ahead of time to make the game fun for the players. Would it kill the players to bend a little themselves and make the game fun for the DM.

I have one DM I play with who likes adventures and quests but not a lot of angsty style characters. He does not want any party conflict or complex backstories. So as a player I don't make an agsty conflicted ridden PC with a detailed backstory.

He knows I like role playing so he does try and have situations where I get to do it. 

But I know if I want more role playing I play with another DM who thrives on angsty  characters with complex backgrounds. One of the players in that group is more into killing things. But he tries to role play more and the DM tries to give him things to kill.

If everyone at the table made an effort to make sure everyone else was having too then I don't think we would have so many of these type of threads.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 14, 2008)

doghead said:
			
		

> Neither side is going to convince the other. Both sides have presented their positions and now are just going back and forth over the same ground. Let it go.



QFT.

That having been said, I'm in 100% agreement with Storm Raven.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> We aren't talking about discouraging adventurers. We are talking about discouraging murderous cutthroats. The PCs in question have engaged in murder of people under the authority of the government multiple times already. I think that just about any government is going to want to discourage people like that from hanging around. There are probably other adventurers out there who are willing to forego the pleasure of going on murder sprees, and those are going to be the ones desired and rewarded.
> 
> Heck, those are the adventurers who will probably be hunting down the murderous cutthroats.




As I said, it depends.  If you have a large population of civic-minded adventurers, the value of murderous cutthroats who mostly kill demons and orcs drops dramatically.  On the other hand, I see little reason to assume a sufficient population of civic adventurers.  Most of all, I see no reason to posit that a particular scenario will necessarily generate adventurers to fill it; if the world has a large active adventuring population, then they should be constantly aware of each other and sometimes stepping on each others toes.  It seems to me that if there is a group of adventurers who are liable to come after the group who killed the Arbiter-person in the OP, they should be well-known and previously integrated into the setting, with their actions clearly visible.  To do otherwise smacks of "This scenario requires characters who will do what I want.  If PCs don't, then NPCs will."

Again, I'm not questioning that governments would want to limit the actions of high-level murderous thugs.  I just question their ability to do so in most D&D universes.


On the DM-enjoyment aspect: DMs are just as much entitled to fun as players.  I don't buy the increased-workload-means-increased-fun-weight argument; if I didn't enjoy DMing and worldbuilding, I wouldn't do it.  That being said, coming up with a simulationistic world and then finding out how to cleverly pull genre expectations out of neutral rules is great fun, to me.

My view is that, as in every cooperative endeavor, compromise is necessary.  Players need to balance their choice of actions against the demonstrated in-world consequences, and DMs need to sometimes look for edge cases to explain why the expected, unfun result doesn't happen.  The party is captured by a ruthless villain, say.  The predicted, simulationistic, and unfun response is "You are slain before you awake. Game over."  This is not an ideal outcome.  So, you need to explain why this hasn't happened in the context of the world.  No one but an idiot wouldn't kill the party outright?  OK, that means that the villain necessarily is an idiot.  He's been shown to not have been an idiot in the past? OK, then something changed between then and now.  Perhaps he was being advised by one of the PCs diabolical mastermind enemies earlier on, has since been backstabbed and is now working against that enemy, has rejected much of said enemy's previous (good) advice as obviously designed to lead him into bad decisions, and along with it, has decided that rather than killing the PCs, he's going to keep them alive but imprisoned to thwart the enemy's plans.

Simulationism is a two-edged sword; you need to not only enforce the rules consistently, but populate your world cleverly.  Elements in the game world do not have necessary existence, if an evil overlord or a system of laws exists, it's because you chose to put it into the world, presumably because you thought it would be interesting for the PCs to interact with.  If the simulationist rules of the world indicate that the existence of demon lords will result in an unfun campaign setting, you don't introduce demon lords as written.


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Any simulation aspects of the game --if present at all-- have to be in service of entertaining the players. If not, it's just the DM masturbating. In public.



No. Any simulation aspects of the game is to entertain _me_, the DM. If I have to suffer through your false dichotomy, then I'd rather it be me masturbating in public than my players masturbating in public. I'm not a charity. Believe me - I can lose a player and the game continues on quite well. They lose the DM, and the game is over. I play this game for _my_ fun - if I didn't, I'd just go for a round of golf with them instead.

Of course with all that said, the post above is a laughable false dichotomy. The correct answer is - it has to entertain _everyone adequately enough_... the DM included.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Any simulation aspects of the game --if present at all-- have to be in service of entertaining the players. If not, it's just the DM masturbating. In public.




I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon that this is one of the dumbest claims yet made in this thread. The DM, being one of the players of this game, has to get some enjoyment out of it too. It's a cooperative venture, not any individual player's, not the DM's, and not the players' vs the DM.

A DM whose job in presenting his work for just pandering to his players is not a DM, he's an employee or, if unpaid, a slave.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, his campaign world sounds like it would be much more interesting and enjoyable than any one that would be run the way you have suggested.



That's because you seem to enjoy punishing players and their characters.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The game is run for the enjoyment of the players and the DM.



This is true.



> In many ways most importantly the DM.



This is not. 

I like to compare DM'ing to hosting a party, as both require a certain generosity of spirit (not to mention spirits, in the case of the party). The DM, like the party host, does most of the work, but it's primarily for the benefit of others. A good host thinks of his guests first and foremost, they derive they're enjoyment from their guests enjoyment. Put another way, a selfish host is an unsuccessful host. I realize that not everyone enjoys hosting parties, or at least certain kinds of parties, which means they should refrain from doing so.



> The DM must derive enjoyment from the game too, and those simulation aspects may very well do that.



Right, but if those simulation aspects result in a game that the players don't enjoy, we're back to the DM simply pleasuring himself, at which point the group should probably stop playing and go out for a few pints, or that the very least, the DM should go somewhere private. 

At no point did I suggest that the DM's enjoyment didn't matter. What I did suggest was 1) that a DM should end a campaign if they no longer enjoy running it, openly and honestly, rather than use unfairly deployed in-game instruments to punish they players perceived transgressions and that 2) once DM begins running a setting it should be viewed a tool for entertaining the players, and not some artistic creation or worse, a statistical model that has value apart from entertaining the players. 



> Your posts make me think you have never acted as a DM for any length of time.



And you'd be wrong. I primarily DM. For the 23 years I've DM'ed lovingly-detailed homebrew settings, so trust me when I say I know something about DM masturbation.

(My current campaign turns four this year. The Story Hour based on it, which really needs to be updated sometime soon, Rolzup!!), is in my .sig. Check it out if you'd interested in seeing some of my ideas on gaming in action. At the very least, it's well-written and funny).


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Any simulation aspects of the game is to entertain _me_, the DM.



And if this isn't being enjoyed by the players, then what? I thought my suggestion to go for drinks was rather canny. 



> If I have to suffer through your false dichotomy



I'm stating a particular DM stance. I run games to entertain other people. Of course I include material that's of particular, or even exclusive interest to me --like the recent batch of T.S. Eliot parodies that I've interjected into live play-- but I'm well aware of that being a fundamentally masturbatory act. 



> I'm not a charity.



The question is: are you a good host? 



> I play this game for _my_ fun



If you are unconcerned --or even not primarily concerned-- with the other people enjoyment, then why DM? I'm asking this as seriously and as snark-free as I can. I'm honestly curious.



> The correct answer is - it has to entertain _everyone adequately enough_... the DM included.]



And I see the DM in the role of party host, whose enjoyment is pegged to the enjoyment of the guests.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I like to compare DM'ing to hosting a party, as both require a certain generosity of spirit (not to mention spirits, in the case of the party). The DM, like the party host, does most of the work, but it's primarily for the benefit of others. A good host thinks of his guests first and foremost, they derive they're enjoyment from their guests enjoyment. Put another way, a selfish host is an unsuccessful host. I realize that not everyone enjoys hosting parties, or at least certain kinds of parties, which means they should refrain from doing so.




That is a very good comparison. I love to host parties. I get a thrill when my guests have a good time. I try and make my guests comfortable make sure there is food and drink that they like.

When I DM I try and do the same I want my players to have a good time.

But I don't think I would enjoy hosting so much if my guests trashed my home. Or if I had made a wonderful dinner and they decided they would rather order pizza instead. There is a certain standard of mannera expected of guests.

The same goes with players. As I said before if you know your DM likes to run games a certain way you have two choices one don't play if it is not in the style you like go out and find a DM whose taste is more to your liking or two go along with the DM. I can't get over the entitlement issues a lot of players seem to have these days. That the game revolves around them and the DM is a glorified servent. 

If my players said to me we want less role playing and no consquences to our actions and make the game more hack n slash then I would have to say sorry that is not fun for me and I would not enjoy it and I don't think you would enjoy having me run a game I was not having fun in. 

As a player I have left games that were not to my taste I never expected the DM to change the game.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> That's because you seem to enjoy punishing players and their characters.




No, I actually enjoy rewarding the players and their characters. However, if no choice leads to problems (potentially insurmountable problems even), then you aren't actually rewarding them when they are given good stuff, you are merely handing out goodies for nothing. To be meaningful, character choices _must_ potentially have negative consequences, and even potentially fatal consequences.



> _I like to compare DM'ing to hosting a party, as both require a certain generosity of spirit (not to mention spirits, in the case of the party). The DM, like the party host, does most of the work, but it's primarily for the benefit of others. A good host thinks of his guests first and foremost, they derive they're enjoyment from their guests enjoyment. Put another way, a selfish host is an unsuccessful host. I realize that not everyone enjoys hosting parties, or at least certain kinds of parties, which means they should refrain from doing so._




This is wrong. Yes, the DM could be analogized as the host, but it is not primarily for the benefit of others. Not even the host of a party works primarily for the benefit of others - if they did not derive enjoyment from it, they would simply not host. And therefore, there wouldn't be a party. The DM is in a similar position: no DM, no game. No player, game probably continues.

The players are _always_ less important in the overall scheme of things than the DM.



> _Right, but if those simulation aspects result in a game that the players don't enjoy, we're back to the DM simply pleasuring himself, at which point the group should probably stop playing and go out for a few pints, or that the very least, the DM should go somewhere private._




Why? Your whole line of argument seems to be that the _players_ should do this sort of thing all the time. And be rewarded for it, and never suffer negative or deadly consequences as a result. Why should the DM have to go with the flow when a player or players want to do this, but if he tries to mold the game (which is under his direction to begin with, and absolutely requires his involvement to continue) into something he will enjoy, this is somewho illegitimate?



> _At no point did I suggest that the DM's enjoyment didn't matter. What I did suggest was 1) that a DM should end a campaign if they no longer enjoy running it, openly and honestly, rather than use unfairly deployed in-game instruments to punish they players perceived transgressions and that 2) once DM begins running a setting it should be viewed a tool for entertaining the players, and not some artistic creation or worse, a statistical model that has value apart from entertaining the players._




Except, of course, that the entire history of the FRPG says you are wrong. _Most_ campaign settings are mostly artistic creations and have a life other than entertaining the players. They entertain the DM and/or (if they are seperate people) the creator _primarily_.



> _And you'd be wrong. I primarily DM. For the 23 years I've DM'ed lovingly-detailed homebrew settings, so trust me when I say I know something about DM masturbation._




I find this very hard to believe.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> That is a very good comparison.



Thanks. 



> I get a thrill when my guests have a good time.



Me too. 



> But I don't think I would enjoy hosting so much if my guests trashed my home.



I have trouble seeing the destruction of actual property as analogous to the vandalism of a virtual space. You can't really trash an _idea_. Or you can, but it's incredibly easy to restore to pristine condition.



> Or if I had made a wonderful dinner and they decided they would rather order pizza instead.



Wonderful in whose eyes? 



> There is a certain standard of manners expected of guests.



Sure. But that doesn't mean that a host is well-advised to ignore their guests preferences.



> If my players said to me we want less role playing and no consquences to our actions and make the game more hack n slash then I would have to say sorry that is not fun for me and I would not enjoy it and I don't think you would enjoy having me run a game I was not having fun in.



And that's perfectly fine (note my advice in this case is shelve the game and go to a pub). What I've arguing against, well, perhaps 'railing' is more accurate, is the rather duplicitous notion that the DM should *keep* running a campaign they don't enjoy and use in-game actors --otherwise known as NPC's they can't possibly defeat--  in order to teach the players the error of their playstyle preferences. This strikes me as DM'ing under false pretenses.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I actually enjoy rewarding the players and their characters.



For playing the game your way.



> - if they did not derive enjoyment from it, they would simply not host.



Which is why I wrote "(hosts) derive their enjoyment from their guest's enjoyment". Except I originally wrote it with an embarrassing "their/they're" goof.



> The players are _always_ less important in the overall scheme of things than the DM.



I (politely) disagree.  



> Why should the DM have to go with the flow when a player or players want to do this



Because if the players reach a consensus then the DM is outnumbered. At that point the DM needs to resign with no hard feelings or get with the program. 

If your dinner guests inform you they don't like fish, you either have to stop hosting dinner parties or stop serving fish. Continuing to serve seafood mains would be pointless, no matter how much you personally like fish.



> Except, of course, that the entire history of the FRPG says you are wrong.



O Rly? 



> They entertain the DM and/or (if they are separate people) the creator _primarily_.



Prove it. I dare you. 



> I find this very hard to believe.



SR, my campaign's got a Story Hour on this board with over 16,000 page views, not to mention gets mentioned in various threads, seeing as I DM IRL for several ENWorlders, including a one high-volume poster. So the proof's there, if you care to read it. Or you can continue believing whatever you want despite evidence to the contrary.  

And, BTW, I know masturbation!!!111!


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> And if this isn't being enjoyed by the players, then what? I thought my suggestion to go for drinks was rather canny.



It was. (And which is why I suggested golf!)

Of course, we've seen no evidence in the OP that doing x won't be enjoyed by the OPer's players.



> If you are unconcerned --or even not primarily concerned-- with the other people enjoyment, then why DM? I'm asking this as seriously and as snark-free as I can. I'm honestly curious.



Beats me. I'm not the one that came up with the aforementioned false dichotomy (that I played along with). You came up with it, so I'll let you work on figuring it out.

I gave the correct answer quite clearly in my previous post.

(We may be taling about the same general thing, but you just probably need to articulate better.)


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> It was. (And which is why I suggested golf!)



Golf works too. 



> Of course, we've seen no evidence in the OP that doing x won't be enjoyed by the OPer's players.



True, but most of my responses were aimed at posters who advised things like "attack the party with NPC's twice their level" and "torment the paladin's soul in Hell for all eternity", things which probably wouldn't be enjoyed by anyone outside the odd sadomasochist. 



> (We may be taling about the same general thing, but you just probably need to articulate better.)



I'm getting a lot of practice articulating in this thread.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> For playing the game your way.




And? Someone has to come up with what the responses of a game world will be. If no choice has any impact, then you aren't actually DMing a game, then you are _really_ involved in public masturbation.



> _Which is why I wrote "(hosts) derive their enjoyment from their guest's enjoyment". Except I originally wrote it with an embarrassing "their/they're" goof._




No. They can (and do) also derive enjoyment from the party itself. If they don't, and only derive vicarious enjoyment through their guests supposed enjoyment, then they usually end up not enjoying themselves much.



> _Because if the players reach a consensus then the DM is outnumbered. At that point the DM needs to resign with no hard feelings or get with the program._




In other words, the DM should run the game the players want regardless of his or her own desires. That's simply ridiculous.



> _If your dinner guests inform you they don't like fish, you either have to stop hosting dinner parties or stop serving fish. Continuing to serve seafood mains would be pointless, no matter how much you personally like fish._




No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem. If they want something else, they can cook dinner and eat at home, if they can get off their lazy hind ends and do it. You can always find other guests who _do_ like fish.



> _Prove it. I dare you._




Easily. Go open up the covers of pretty much any published setting. How long will it take you to find something of no actual value to the players that exists merely as an artistic addition? Something that is purely "masturbatory" to use your phrasing? Six seconds? Less?

Perhaps you should look at the actual text of the 1e DMG concerning alignments too. Or the text of any game that includes things like flaws or drawbacks concerning how to penalize players for having such attributes. The history of FRPGs (actually, RPGs, not just FRPGs) is _all_ about imposing some form of DM fiat over players - in the sense that the DM decides what sort of campaign is being run, not the players.

The problem you are having seems to stem from the notion that _any_ kind of penalty for the players is either inherently wrong, or must be somehow scaled to their current power level. Basically, you seem to be arguing that no matter what the PCs do, the response will be "level appropriate", because to do otherwise you are "imposing" on the players somehow.

I counter by saying this: by reacting in such a manner, you are _not_ imposing on the players. You are actually freeing them. if their choices only result in level appropriate responses, then they don't actually have meaningful choices. They are on a set of railroad tracks of your making, and they will end up at "win-town" (so to speak) right on schedule, no matter what they do. On the other hand, if their choices have meaning, if the campaign world reacts to them in a consistent and reasonable manner, then their choices could easily get them killed. As a result, they have actual choices, not the false choices you seem to want to stick them with.



> _SR, my campaign's got a Story Hour on this board with over 16,000 page views, not to mention gets mentioned in various threads, seeing as I DM IRL for several ENWorlders, including a one high-volume poster. So the proof's there, if you care to read it. Or you can continue believing whatever you want despite evidence to the contrary._




Given your posts here, I'm inclined to think your alleged story hour is just an elaborate hoax.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem. If they want something else, they can cook dinner and eat at home, if they can get off their lazy hind ends and do it.




Why do you presume the guests are lazy?  Do you presume your players are lazy?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You can always find other guests who _do_ like fish.




You may like fish, but that doesn't mean you get invited to my parties.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Why do you presume the guests are lazy?  Do you presume your players are lazy?




Many players are comparatively lazy - they don't want to put in the work to DM. If they do so, then I'll gladly play in a style of game they prefer.



> _You may like fish, but that doesn't mean you get invited to my parties._




Maybe, or maybe not. Of course, the type of player who is being lauded here (the one who wants to play a style of game radically different from the one the DM wants, and who we are told should be let do whatever they want and the DM should just "go with it" regardless of their own desires) is like a party guest who, when invited to clam bake, complains that the only food served is seafood and demands that everyone eat chicken instead (the analogy breaks down a little, if you are a player like that described, _everyone's_ enjoyment is affected by your preferences, as opposed to you not eating clams, which doesn't change my ability to eat clams one whit).


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Many players are lazy




That is quite an assumption, but it sure explains a lot.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem.



You should probably refrain from throwing dinner parties.



> Easily. Go open up the covers of pretty much any published setting. How long will it take you to find something of no actual value to the players? Something that is purely "masturbatory" to use your phrasing? Six seconds? Less?



You've managed to demonstrate 1) there's no such things as uniform utility when in comes to RPG setting material --of course a setting book is going to contain material that _some_ players/groups won't find useful, but it most certainly included with the intent that some groups/players _will_ find it useful-- and 2)  despite the best of intentions, there's an unfortunate amount of useless wank in most published settings.  



> Given your posts here, I'm inclined to think your alleged story hour is just an elaborate lie.



I'm now inclined to think you're lazy. There's a link to the story in my sig. Click it, I dare you.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...and the DM should just "go with it" regardless of their own desires



What I said was "the DM should either 'go with it' *or* amiably agree to stop DM'ing and either engage in some other form of recreational activity --like golf or pub-crawling-- or let someone else run a game."

 It's a very simple point, please don't misrepresent it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What I said was "the DM should either 'go with it' *or* amiably agree to stop DM'ing and either engage in some other form of recreational activity --like golf or pub-crawling-- or let someone else run a game."




The DM doesn't want to golf or pub-crawl. He wants to play D&D (or some other RPG). Telling him that he should play in a style he doesn't like or engage in some other activity is simply being a jerk. The DM's enjoyment must be the primary concern of any RPG, as absent the DM, there is no game. Hence, the only realistic option is that the players should conform, as they are pretty much easily replaceable at the table. They can go find some other DM who doesn't mind them behaving like murderous thugs without consequence if they can't handle the reaction their behaviour engenders from the other denizens of the campaign world.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given your posts here, I'm inclined to think your alleged story hour is just an elaborate hoax.



So now it's a hoax and not a lie...

Yes, tens of thousands of words of narrative, plus additional setting information just to fool people like you into believing... something. Careful, SR, you're about to cut yourself with Occam's Razor.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You should probably refrain from throwing dinner parties.




A guest at a dinner party pretty much needs to accept what is offered and not whine about it. Given your attitudes, you should probably refrain from attending dinner parties.



> _You've managed to demonstrate 1) there's no such things as uniform utility when in comes to RPG setting material --of course a setting book is going to contain material that some players/groups won't find useful, but it most certainly included with the intent that some groups/players will find it useful-- and 2)  despite the best of intentions, there's an unfortunate amount of useless wank in most published settings._




And yet this "useless wank" is pervasive, and considered integral to the settings, and is generally desired by just about everyone. It is part and parcel of RPG history, and no amount of whining on your part is going to change that. The fundamental point here is that the history of RPGs pretty much contradicts your argument about artistic elements in game worlds. As I said it did.



> _I'm now inclined to think you're lazy. There's a link to the story in my sig. Click it, I dare you._




I'm sure the posts are there. I'm just inclined to think they are just a made-up hoax that doesn't describe any actual gaming.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Yes, tens of thousands of words of narrative, plus additional setting information just to fool people like you.




Nah, it's just to puff up your own ego.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Nah, it's just to puff up your own ego.



So now it's not a hoax, it's an ego trip? I should probably point out one of the players writes it.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Nah, it's just to puff up your own ego.





*Storm Raven*, if you want to be insulting, do it on another board.  Please don't post in this thread again.


----------



## Slife (Apr 14, 2008)

So... Stormraven...

You're saying that when you have a group of five* people gathered to play a game, the goal is to only entertain one of them?

Seems a little odd.


So, to continue the party analogy, what kind of drinks do you buy?  Five cases of your favorite kind, or a mixed batch (including a case of your favorite drink)?

*Assuming standard group size


----------



## billd91 (Apr 14, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem. If they want something else, they can cook dinner and eat at home, if they can get off their lazy hind ends and do it. You can always find other guests who _do_ like fish.




OK, this is getting ridiculous. The *RIGHT* answer is to serve enough fish so that you can eat it and have some to share (should any of your friends decide to be adventurous) and also serve some other foods as well.

Cripes, SR, you're as stubborn as Mallus on this!


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 14, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Me too.
> ...





Don't get me wrong a good host makes sure that they see to theri guests comfort let's take the dinner party example when I do one I make sure to find out if there are allergies, special food needs, dislikes. I want my guests to enjoy the dinner.

Now I was taught that when you are a guest at a dinner party unless you are allergic you don't make a fuss over what is served. You move it around your plate you eat what you like. If thr hostess asks you can say I am not a big fish eater or if the food is simply not to your liking you say that you just were not hungry. 

You don't order pizza that is rude an insulting to the hostess. 

I have a friend who is a terrible cook but I love her company and she always has interesting people at her dinner parties. So I know most of the time the food is going to suck but the company makes up for it so I eat before I go.

But if the food is that bad you just don't go to any more of that person's dinner parties. There is no need to be an ass about it.

Gaming is the same way. A good DM tries to make a game that is fun for his players but the players need to meet the DM halfway. They need to make it fun for the DM as well.

If your DM has worked a lot on his world and wants to run a game based on good PCs who want to make a difference saving the world then the players need to either go along with it or say no I am not interested.

But coming to the table and trashing the game by playing your PC in away that is going to derail the game is rude. And no it is not the same as trashing a home but the sentiment is the same.

I don't disagree with you on the DM keeping running a game that the players don't like. That DM needs to find new players just like the players should find a new DM.

I don't believe you can teach players in game if they are not interested all you do is upset everyone. In a case where you feel the PCs are behaving badly instead of bringing NPCs to punish them it would be better to just talk to them and if they are not willing to change and you don't want to play like that then you say so.

Though I tell my players that consquences happen in my game for the good and the bad. If they do evil things eventually unless they play it really smart it will catch up with them. I don't try and punish them unfairly but say they piss off a powerful ruler who has the means to destroy them then that is how I will DM it. The same way I would if a party of 1 level good PCs went and pissed off an elder red dragon.


----------



## Slife (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong a good host makes sure that they see to theri guests comfort let's take the dinner party example when I do one I make sure to find out if there are allergies, special food needs, dislikes. I want my guests to enjoy the dinner.
> 
> Now I was taught that when you are a guest at a dinner party unless you are allergic you don't make a fuss over what is served. You move it around your plate you eat what you like. If thr hostess asks you can say I am not a big fish eater or if the food is simply not to your liking you say that you just were not hungry.
> 
> You don't order pizza that is rude an insulting to the hostess.



The situation analogous to ordering a pizza is going to Storm Raven's game and bringing your World of Darkness or GURPS or whatever and DMing yourself, ignoring him.



> I don't believe you can teach players in game if they are not interested all you do is upset everyone. In a case where you feel the PCs are behaving badly instead of bringing NPCs to punish them it would be better to just talk to them and if they are not willing to change and you don't want to play like that then you say so.
> 
> Though I tell my players that consquences happen in my game for the good and the bad. If they do evil things eventually unless they play it really smart it will catch up with them. I don't try and punish them unfairly but say they piss off a powerful ruler who has the means to destroy them then that is how I will DM it. The same way I would if a party of 1 level good PCs went and pissed off an elder red dragon.




Agreed.  If you think there's a fundamental disconnect, you should take some time OOC and talk to the players about it.  

"We attack the arbiter"

"OK guys, wait a second.  You do know that he's the lawful authority in this region, so the paladin will get divine smackdown if he goes along with this.  And if you take out the king's right hand man, he's going to declare you renegades and call in favors to have you hunted down.  If I recall correctly, that's what he had you do five sessions ago, in fact, so you should know he'll escalate with more powerful adventurers.  If you want to be fugitives from justice living on the run, go ahead, but don't expect your characters to have long lifespans."

There.  The ball's back in the player's court, you haven't told them anything they shouldn't already know in character, and hopefully they've thought through their actions a little.

If they decide to go along with the Bad Idea anyway, well, they were warned, and can't blame you when the king declares them outlaws and sends a CR+3 encounter at them every day they're within his sphere of influence.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 15, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I have trouble seeing the destruction of actual property as analogous to the vandalism of a virtual space. You can't really trash an _idea_. Or you can, but it's incredibly easy to restore to pristine condition.




Actually, it can be incredibly hard to get a campaign back on track after its been trashed, either by an undesired TPK or by players who take the feat Resist Common Sense.

That's the point of this thread, isn't it? That the OP is having trouble dealing with a narrative that he feels has been trashed?


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I counter by saying this: by reacting in such a manner, you are _not_ imposing on the players. You are actually freeing them. if their choices only result in level appropriate responses, then they don't actually have meaningful choices. They are on a set of railroad tracks of your making, and they will end up at "win-town" (so to speak) right on schedule, no matter what they do. On the other hand, if their choices have meaning, if the campaign world reacts to them in a consistent and reasonable manner, then their choices could easily get them killed. As a result, they have actual choices, not the false choices you seem to want to stick them with.




Obscured amongst the flame war here is a valid point about story construction. Which I happen to agree with.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 15, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> Agreed.  If you think there's a fundamental disconnect, you should take some time OOC and talk to the players about it.
> 
> "We attack the arbiter"
> 
> ...




I wholeheartedly agree with this approach.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 15, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> I wholeheartedly agree with this approach.




I agree with this approach with the proviso that there should be endgame scenarios besides "The king's endless stream of resources that appeared as soon as you started opposing him wear you down."  If you start with a list of what the king has, what he can reasonably allocate to stopping the PCs, and what he can unreasonaly allocate once it becomes clear that the PCs do agree that an attack on the King's man is an attack on the King and are coming to finish the job.

For extra credit, skim George R.R. Martin's later books in the Song of Ice and Fire series, so you can describe how rapidly horrible things get in medieval society when power vacuums occur.  With the right narration and player buy-in, virture really is its own reward, and sin its own punishment.


----------



## Herobizkit (Apr 15, 2008)

I just wanted to come in again and remind everyone (and some in particular) that the Fantasy Role-Playing Game is a shared experience.  While the DM does suffer the burden of the heavy workload, the end result is pretty much self-gratification unless the DM has players to interact with his creation.  By contrast, the players should be willing and able to work within the confines of the DM's world vision.  If the players threaten the harmony of the DM's vision, or the DM enforces his vision on the players regardless of what they do, the easiest solution is to call "time out" and talk it over as the above poster suggested.

After all, in a game of players vs. DM, the DM always wins.

Except for Diaglo... he's just a referee.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 15, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Man, you are a grump...
> 
> Seriously though, at the point this starts sounding like good DM'ing advice, shouldn't you just lay off D&D for a while and go drinking with your mates instead?



This was back around twenty five years ago, I was a much Younger Grump then... the campaign continued for a good number of years afterward from the above mentioned mass hanging. 

Not mentioned in the above is that I had been fairly blatant in my use of the Clue Club (tm) in regards to the situation with the orcs. In part it was about the culture of the orcs being changed by non-violent contact with non-orcish beings. (And, in the long run, this was just as destructive of the orc culture as the war had been.)  Also, and this may or may not be viewed as important, the orcs were the original inhabitants of the area - humans, dwarfs, elves, etc. were the invaders. (And the players had been informed of such.) 

Some (not all) of the Paladins and Clerics of the primary monotheistic religion were openly criticizing both the Church and the secular authorities for their treatment of the orcs. (Based loosely on the Society of Jesus during the Spanish invasion of the New World, with similar consequences for the Clerics and Paladins involved....)

Once the _players_ figured out what their characters should have realized the game went much more smoothly, and that was, I think, the only TPK in the campaign. The players were caught up in the Kill things, Grab their treasure, Rinse and Repeat school of thought. There was a great deal of adventure to be had, and adventurers were not only generally allowed, they were most often welcome. Sometimes they had to argue with orcs, or deal harshly with orcs (and humans) from neighboring areas that were still at war, and on more than one ocassion protecting the local orcs from either neighboring humans or orcs.

Murdering an unarmed, unarmored orc, who's only crime was walking openly on a public road - not hiding, not planning an ambush, but simply traveling from Point A to Point B, having grown accustomed to the relative peace that had broken out in the local area was not the act of a thoughtful or Good character. I even recall the moment when one of the players realized that it _was_ murder, and that the orcs were not the bad guys in this area of the world. The next time the game went much more smoothly as a result.

One of the other, openly stated, conceits of the campaign was that I like to see the good guys win. If the players insist on playing the bad guys then the good guys will still win... I do not want to run a game about villains, murdering folks because they disagree with the characters.

And yes, I was exaggerating about playing out the hanging and torturing the ex-Paladin in Hell for all eternity - but not about his trial and execution, nor of his being an ex-paladin - he has committed murder. I have never been a big fan of the 'we can get away with it because we are the PCs' mode of thought. I might go so far as to tell the ex-paladin that he is sent to a warmer place than he expected....

What does this all mean? That I was running a good game, and you are having bad wrong fun.
Not all play styles are the same, but the DM has just as much a right as the players to having a good time with the game. Maybe a tad more - in general a DM puts a lot more work into the game - but not much more. The game has to be fun for _everyone_.

It also means that I posted the above with not anywhere near enough sleep, and as a result was more Cranky than Grumpy. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 15, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> The situation analogous to ordering a pizza is going to Storm Raven's game and bringing your World of Darkness or GURPS or whatever and DMing yourself, ignoring him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey you! Stop being reasonable here! There are people trying to _argue!_

Gods, some people.... Grumble, grumble, grumble.... 

This is of course the best answer.

The Auld Grump


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 15, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I agree with this approach with the proviso that there should be endgame scenarios besides "The king's endless stream of resources that appeared as soon as you started opposing him wear you down."  If you start with a list of what the king has, what he can reasonably allocate to stopping the PCs, and what he can unreasonaly allocate once it becomes clear that the PCs do agree that an attack on the King's man is an attack on the King and are coming to finish the job.




Nod, definitely worth sketching out, and thinking about the King's personality -- is it possible he would eventually knuckle under to the PC's and decide he's lost enough folks, or will it become a vendetta with massive resources after the PC's?  Will he send killer parties, or will his wrath be felt by outlawry -- the refusal of almost everyone to help the PC's in any way -- closing the shop when the PC's come into town, etc.

It could become a memorable campaign.  Assuming the DM is fairly light on the PC's and they like the outlaw game, I envision a bloody assault on the King's castle and a TPK at the end, but smiles all around a fun but unusual experiment.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

I think a few of the responses were from the "the good guys have to win" school of DMing, where consequences are not simulationist, but actually railroading for the desired result (punishment for killing the arbiter).

The people who advocate the "send in 2xparty level NPC adventurers" response need to consider the ramifications of this - if that's the usual consequence in the campaign, why have the adventurers been fighting CR-appropriate foes, and were not sent to battle foes half their level as well? If that's not the usual response, why does it happen now, and not back 2 levels when the adventurers were hard pressed to get help against overwhelming numbers of orcs attacking the kingdom?

Simulationism is all nice and well, but you have to consider that whenever you bring in those killer NPCs to squash evil PCs, the Players are allowed to ask where those NPCs were when it was just the PCs and the demon horde.

So, if you go the simulation route, and all "consequences!", be fair. Set the ressources of the kingdom beforehand, and use them logically all the time, not just when the PCs come up against the kingdom.
You may very well discover that a kingdowm that has the resosurces to squash a mid-level PC party like bugs has a limited number of adventuring opportunities for low-level and mid-level PCs.

And of course, in a simulated world, treat the PCs like NPCs. If the nobles of a realm can get away with a crime, then so should the PCs, if they are powerful enough. So, in order to use the "Now suffer the consequences" approach, make sure you allow the PCs to bring the same amount of wrath down on their foes ("Ok... back when we had proof of the Duke killing his wife, why didn't he get smacked down with those ultra-NPCs? You said the duke was too powerful to be toppled over his wife's death, but if the king has these killers on call, how could that be? And if the duke has similar people on call, why are we still alive after investigating his wife's death?")


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 15, 2008)

I'm still in favor of giving the game and the players the benefit of the doubt, having the paladin be switched over to a CG Paladin of Freedom variant, and move the campaign towards a freedom fighter mode. The populace is against them, the patrols of mooks are out there looking for them, and if the reward gets high enough a level appropriate party just might track them down. But if they could only find the Resistance....

The players get to play the game they really want to play, the DM gets to hit them with the Consequences stick and keep his game world internally consistent, and everyone gets to keep playing. Everybody wins.

I wonder what the OP ended up doing?


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> And of course, in a simulated world, treat the PCs like NPCs. If the nobles of a realm can get away with a crime, then so should the PCs, if they are powerful enough. So, in order to use the "Now suffer the consequences" approach, make sure you allow the PCs to bring the same amount of wrath down on their foes ("Ok... back when we had proof of the Duke killing his wife, why didn't he get smacked down with those ultra-NPCs? You said the duke was too powerful to be toppled over his wife's death, but if the king has these killers on call, how could that be? And if the duke has similar people on call, why are we still alive after investigating his wife's death?")




You're conflating power (level) with legitimacy (position in the feudal order -- I assume feudal since it's D&D and you said "Duke").

It's quite possible that being high level does not give a character greater "immunity" to behave obnoxiously (legitimacy is based on birth, or election, or the choice of the gods (as in Tibet), not the ability to kill stuff or how much money you have).

Or you could rule it that high level does get you legitimacy in your campaign/this particular country.

I see the question (for the DM) as: Is the campaign a world where a Sergeant who's tricky enough can take over and be dictator ruling by fear and the iron fist (1970s Uganda -- think Idi Amin) or is it a world where privilege is inherited and rank is sometimes given to powerful adventurers, but only when they respect and serve the legitimate ruler (Elizabethean England -- think Sir Francis Drake)?  The D&D default is likely that both exist, but in different countries.

Also, you're conflating crimes against a person (the Duke murdered his own wife) with crimes against the state (the Duke murdered the king's arbiter).  A state has a choice about whether to look the other way when a crime against a person is committed. (Ah, the Duke's kid beat up a vagrant again, but we need the Duke's troops for the war, so we'll ignore it.)  But the state, if it wants to stay in business as a state, has no choice when it's authority is directly threatened.  (The Duke tossed our arbiters down the well, in front of the populace?  The secessionist devil!  This means war!)

I'm talking about the difference between OJ Simpson killing his wife versus Timothy McVey blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  Both are murderers.  One walked, the other was executed.  The state (and the people) are annoyed by but can tolerate the first, and even if OJ had been convicted, execution seems unlikely.  The second, there was no room for mercy -- McVey needed to die for attacking the nation, and indeed he did, quite swiftly compared to most death-penalty cases.

Max Weber, one of the fathers of political science, came up with the definition of the state that still works best:
"The state is the organization which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory."

The PC's in this case not only commited illegitimate violence (murder of a person) but also directly challenged the state.  As a poli sci/history major DM, I would make life very, very tough for a party foolish enough to think it's above the law, if they were in a place where there is a law/state.  A state that kowtows to cop killers is no state -- and citizen cop killers are a much greater threat to the state (to its monopoly on power) than an external force like orc raiders killing random peasants.

You're singing:
"I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
Arbiter John always hated me, why I do not know
But my level was higher, so I shot, I shot him down
And now he knows his place"

I'm singing:
"Bad boys, bad boys, what you gunna do?
What you gunna do when they come for you?
Policeman he give you no break
Not even the soldier man he give you no break"


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> You're conflating power (level) with legitimacy (position in the feudal order -- I assume feudal since it's D&D and you said "Duke").




No, I am looking at it as a pure power question. Legitimacy and lineage and nobility is window dressing in this situation. It's first and foremost a policial question.

Consider the PCs, if they are mid to high level, as having power equivalent to at least a duke - more likely a foreign power like a viking state. Now, the question is not whether they committed a crime against a state, or a person, the question is: Will the King _go to war_ with that power over the death of an arbiter?

We're talking about a highly mobile force that can wreck havoc on a kingdom. The King might very well win, but the kingdom will be suffering.

Will he choose war, or will he choose a pretext like "Well, that arbiter acted without my clearance, and was insuting honest people" to avoid war?

Or, as another analogy: If the arbiter had been rude to a foreign noble (like, say a viking), and had been killed, would the king go to war with the vikings?

I think you either play a non-standard D&D game, where kingdoms have much greater ressources than in the DMG, or you underestimate the destruction a high-level party can cause. Once your party has the spells and mobility to ruin an entire harvest, and burn cities, and the fighting power to hack through an entire company witout breaking a sweat, they become a power even kings have to respect. Nobility, shmobility - that's pure politics. Law doesn't enter unless the king really follows "Justice be done, even if the world may be undone".

Feudalism is all nice and good, but power tops it everytime.

Unless, of course, the King has his own high-level adventurers able to handle such threats, but then - what the heck were the PCs doing then until now, and where have those guys been during the last three crisises?


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> The PC's in this case not only commited illegitimate violence (murder of a person) but also directly challenged the state.  As a poli sci/history major DM, I would make life very, very tough for a party foolish enough to think it's above the law, if they were in a place where there is a law/state.  A state that kowtows to cop killers is no state -- and citizen cop killers are a much greater threat to the state (to its monopoly on power) than an external force like orc raiders killing random peasants.




I see it very differently. I see a king having to decide whether or not some stupid arbiter who managed to provoke something with the power of an army into killing him is worth risking the kingdom.

It's not a case of a copkiller for me, it's a case of "What did that man do? Was he mad? Trying to bully around the group that eradicated the northern orc horde that wrecked our neightbour kingdowm two months ago? What was the fool thinking!!"

Are the PCs in the right? Probably not. But the certainly are in the might, and in a feudal society, and even in our modern world, Might makes Right. 

Unless of course we leave simulationism, but then all bets are off.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I see it very differently. I see a king having to decide whether or not some stupid arbiter who managed to provoke something with the power of an army into killing him is worth risking the kingdom.
> 
> It's not a case of a copkiller for me, it's a case of "What did that man do? Was he mad? Trying to bully around the group that eradicated the northern orc horde that wrecked our neightbour kingdowm two months ago? What was the fool thinking!!"
> 
> ...




But you're forgetting other powers the king has at his disposal. He's got networks of justice enforcement and other government officials providing him with information, he's got the deep pocket power of a taxed populace, and if the PCs have been big enough jerks, better relations with the masses than the PCs have. 

The PCs just got the money in their pockets and swords/spells at their sides... and they have to sleep sometime.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 15, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> The PC's in this case not only commited illegitimate violence (murder of a person) but also directly challenged the state.  As a poli sci/history major DM, I would make life very, very tough for a party foolish enough to think it's above the law, if they were in a place where there is a law/state.  A state that kowtows to cop killers is no state -- and citizen cop killers are a much greater threat to the state (to its monopoly on power) than an external force like orc raiders killing random peasants.




It still comes down to the adventurers - especially if they're above 12th level or so - having a unique degree of personal power that our real world has never had to deal with, so we have no methods in place for it. If Mr Random Mad Bomber can teleport, bounce bullets, and stuff like that then Mr Random Mad Bomber would still be at large no matter the wishes of the State; the State would probably be powerless against him and people would have to accept that fact. 

It's not a matter of the state kowtowing or not; it's a matter of 'do the adventurers _give them a choice _ about whether or not to kowtow'.

We can, of course, turn this right around. 

It comes down to 'Do the adventurers have the power _they think they have_'? Usually, the answer to that is 'no'. When this case comes about, it's because of lax GMing or a GM that doesn't, at the heart of it, want to piss people off by being clever. 

Lack of rules knowledge also helps this. The Archmage might be 22nd level and have a _contingency _ spell on him to _teleport _ him to a safe location when he drops below 10 HP but I bet he doesn't carry _that 1500gp statue that has to be on his person_ (nor the majority of his magic items) with him into the _bathtub_. 

Did you, off the top of your head, know that about _contingency_? I didn't. 

Your 0-level maid delivers his wine, then hits him in the stomach and holds him under water. No spellcasting, no holding his breath; three rounds of missing his dump-stat CON saves and he's dead no matter how many hit points he has. I'm sure there's some weird-ass Feat that lets you conjure without speaking but most people aren't going to have _all _ the weird-ass feats that let you do something like that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I see it very differently. I see a king having to decide whether or not some stupid arbiter who managed to provoke something with the power of an army into killing him is worth risking the kingdom.




The problem with this thinking is this: if the King (or any other ruler) demonstrates his inability to prevent such challeneges to his authority, he's not going to stay in power long. Unless you posit a _very_ unstable situation at present, those who are in power will be prepared for such problems and have ways of dealing with them, even if they have to go and deal with them themselves.

If they don't, then thier authority will (probably rightly) be questioned by just about everyone around them, and they will probably be overtrhown in short order by someone who _can_ hold on to power. I can't think of any historical situation in which a ruler (or ruling group) that could not defend itself stayed in power for any appreciable length of time.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Feudalism is all nice and good, but power tops it everytime.




Sure, which is why those in power in a D&D world will be those who can grab it and hold it. Assuming that the government is somehow lacking in this power seriously undermines the setting.



> _Unless, of course, the King has his own high-level adventurers able to handle such threats, but then - what the heck were the PCs doing then until now, and where have those guys been during the last three crisises?_




Probably dealing with other threats that were more pressing until the PCs started killing government officials. The adventures the PCs are on are most likely _not_ the only problems facing the city, kingdom, empire, or whatever the local power structure is. In point of fact, I usually try to drag many more adventure possibilities across a party's path than they could ever hope to follow up on - the ones they let drop will either (a) fester and get worse, or (b) get solved by another group, who will get the associated fame and rewards.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> IThe people who advocate the "send in 2xparty level NPC adventurers" response need to consider the ramifications of this - if that's the usual consequence in the campaign, why have the adventurers been fighting CR-appropriate foes, and were not sent to battle foes half their level as well? If that's not the usual response, why does it happen now, and not back 2 levels when the adventurers were hard pressed to get help against overwhelming numbers of orcs attacking the kingdom?
> 
> Simulationism is all nice and well, but you have to consider that whenever you bring in those killer NPCs to squash evil PCs, the Players are allowed to ask where those NPCs were when it was just the PCs and the demon horde.
> 
> ...




This is basically completely wrong, and can be shown by referencing a handful of classic D&D adventures, that don't seem to have _any_ trouble providing plenty of opportunity for low-level PCs to adventure while also having various powerful characters also around.

For example, look at the classic T1-4 _Temple of Elemental Evil_. Hommlet has several higher level characters - Jaroo, Terjon, Rufus, Burne, Elmo, and others. But they all have ongoing commitments (well, other than Elmo) that prevent them from adventuring on a regular basis. They can't run off and plunder dungeons because they have an obligation to their followers, or to keep the pirates of Nulb on their guard, and so on. But if the PCs were to decide to wander in to the Inn of the Welcome Wench and kill off Gundigoot and his family, they would certainly respond.

One could reel off numerous other examples - Daggerford, Restenford, and Garroten for example - that show it is pretty easy to come up with a campaign background (and adventure possibilities) where there are both other individuals with personal power around _and_ PCs with stuff to do.


----------



## Slife (Apr 15, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Your 0-level maid delivers his wine, then hits him in the stomach and holds him under water. No spellcasting, no holding his breath; three rounds of missing his dump-stat CON saves and he's dead no matter how many hit points he has. I'm sure there's some weird-ass Feat that lets you conjure without speaking but most people aren't going to have _all _ the weird-ass feats that let you do something like that.



I think he'd win the grapple check.  And the initiative check, for that matter.  And I suspect he'd still be wearing his magic rings (one of which is probably the obligatory ring of freedom of movement) and amulet, as well as have a silent dimension door prepared (because no wizard in his right mind doesn't).

Aside from that, all that can be accomplished by this is the death of a single character (who most likely then gets true resurrected by his cleric buddy), and an increase in the players' paranoid preparations.  Possibly taking up a lot of time in each game, since they're going to be rattling off the million-and-one things they have as defenses.  And if they forget it once, taking advantage of the omission seems more of a jerk move than an actual challenge.  

Still, if your players like the type of challenge, go ahead.  It can be fun to set up ridiculously intricate defenses, and using a list of "standard operating procedures" can speed up the game.  And GM gets four lists of defenses he can crib from for his villains.  Just make sure the game doesn't unintentionally become adversarial.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is basically completely wrong, and can be shown by referencing a handful of classic D&D adventures, that don't seem to have _any_ trouble providing plenty of opportunity for low-level PCs to adventure while also having various powerful characters also around.
> 
> For example, look at the classic T1-4 _Temple of Elemental Evil_. Hommlet has several higher level characters - Jaroo, Terjon, Rufus, Burne, Elmo, and others. But they all have ongoing commitments (well, other than Elmo) that prevent them from adventuring on a regular basis. They can't run off and plunder dungeons because they have an obligation to their followers, or to keep the pirates of Nulb on their guard, and so on. But if the PCs were to decide to wander in to the Inn of the Welcome Wench and kill off Gundigoot and his family, they would certainly respond.
> 
> One could reel off numerous other examples - Daggerford, Restenford, and Garroten for example - that show it is pretty easy to come up with a campaign background (and adventure possibilities) where there are both other individuals with personal power around _and_ PCs with stuff to do.




One could also ask oursleves if those NPCs really would back up idiots who start trouble for personal reasons.

Mighty strange, that a king backs up every stupid brainless idiot that doesn't even know how to handle adventurers without getting killed. Even stranger that such a stupid inept arbiter even made it to that post.

I mean, if the king has those high levle NPCs on call, why on earth does he let an idiot without sense motive, intelligence, or diplomacy run around as an arbiter, an idiot who just manages to get himself killed by a bunch of adventurers? Better to send in the high-levle bard who can talk to the bunch without making them mad.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But you're forgetting other powers the king has at his disposal. He's got networks of justice enforcement and other government officials providing him with information, he's got the deep pocket power of a taxed populace, and if the PCs have been big enough jerks, better relations with the masses than the PCs have.
> 
> The PCs just got the money in their pockets and swords/spells at their sides... and they have to sleep sometime.




If he has idiots like that arbiter on the payroll, who don't even know how to handle PCs without getting killed, then no, he'll probably be hated by the population ("That despot! He sent us this disrespectful clout, who tried to order our good duke around, and when we defended ourselves, he had the duke hung! To Arms!")


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> One could also ask oursleves if those NPCs really would back up idiots who start trouble for personal reasons.




My guess: probably, if the alternative were to assume that being rude to a bunch of andering vagabonds was tantamount permission for murder. I doubt, for example, that Jaroo and Terjon would have any credibility with their followers if they allowed that sort of thing to happen without some sort of response.



> _Mighty strange, that a king backs up every stupid brainless idiot that doesn't even know how to handle adventurers without getting killed. Even stranger that such a stupid inept arbiter even made it to that post._




Yeah, it sure is strange that the king (or other government) responds badly when their officials get killed. I mean, after all, if an LAPD cop can't handle a band of gang members without getting killed, then it isn't worth finding those responsible and punishing them.

Really now, the "logic" of your comment is just about as silly as anything I've seen this month.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

This is the problem with high level DnD unless your players are willing to get into character and not use the power they have to run roughshod over the world then there is little a DM can do other than throw higher level NPCs at them.

That of course leaves a bad tatse in everyone's mouth.

I have talked this over with my players and I told them that unless we made some house rules for certain situations I would not be interested in running the game to high level.

For one thing we are working on house rules on how to handle it if the pCs are high level and dealing with an army or a large group of city guards that have htem surronded. 

My players agree thet they don't like the idea that they could not be touched by a group of city guards who had crossbow aimed at them. It takes away from the fantasy of the game.

But part of it part of  it isrole playing. Good role players have a reason for what they do. A reason above I do it because I am 12 level and the guard is only 3 that is metagaming. How would a person know something like that.

Why would a group of good adventures want to destroy a good king's power base? Why would a paladin choose to kill the king's lawman?

I have played in an evil game and we found out that to really succeed you need to be smart and try and stay under the radar. If you blantly commit evil acts that can be traced to you, you draw uneanted attention to youself and your plans.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

(Which is what bugs me the most: Does no one else thinks that a smart king would not have inept arbiters, or he'd have lots of troubles with his nobles, and anyone else such clouts made mad by acting without diplomacy, or respect for personal power?)


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Actually, it can be incredibly hard to get a campaign back on track after its been trashed, either by an undesired TPK or by players who take the feat Resist Common Sense.



Actually, I was thinking it's easier for a group to reboot a new version of a 'trashed' setting than, say, reboot a trashed living room and smashed plasma TV.  But is it that difficult to get an on-going campaign back on track? If there's consensus and DM interest/player buy-in I don't think it should be. I mean, what's a setting made of if not consensus and buy-in?

My suspicion is that campaigns which prove to be difficult to 'right' are ones in which some participants aren't really interested in or committed to fixing.



> That's the point of this thread, isn't it? That the OP is having trouble dealing with a narrative that he feels has been trashed?



I didn't get the sense he felt it was 'trashed'. My take was that the OP didn't like the direction the campaign was moving in, and was thinking about how he could keep running the campaign, and if he even wanted to do so.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> My guess: probably, if the alternative were to assume that being rude to a bunch of andering vagabonds was tantamount permission for murder. I doubt, for example, that Jaroo and Terjon would have any credibility with their followers if they allowed that sort of thing to happen without some sort of response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Uh... again, we're not talking gang members and cops, we are more talking stuff like "ok, our cop just made the ambassador of russia so mad he tried to kill him? What did possess that fool?"


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If he has idiots like that arbiter on the payroll, who don't even know how to handle PCs without getting killed, then no, he'll probably be hated by the population ("That despot! He sent us this disrespectful clout, who tried to order our good duke around, and when we defended ourselves, he had the duke hung! To Arms!")




Yeah, the populace will hate the enforcer of law and order and love the randomly murderous thuggish PCs. That makes sense.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is the problem with high level DnD unless your players are willing to get into character and not use the power they have to run roughshod over the world then there is little a DM can do other than throw higher level NPCs at them.
> 
> That of course leaves a bad tatse in everyone's mouth.
> 
> ...




In my game, high level PCs are treated with far more respect by lawmen. That avoids a lot of trouble, and seems to be more logical to me. I at least do not think too many NPCs would want to make high level PCs mad (or make any other hogh level characters mad).

It's a give and take - my PCs don't act like idiot ruffians, my NPCs don't act like that either. Or if they do, consequences happen.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Uh... again, we're not talking gang members and cops, we are more talking stuff like "ok, our cop just made the ambassador of russia so mad he tried to kill him? What did possess that fool?"




Except that's not the situation we are talking about in this thread.

You have an arbiter (cop) and a group of mercenary PCs (gang). The gang killed the cop for no real apparent reason.

Now explain why (a) the government wouldn't try to punish the gang, and (b) the populace would spontaneously side with the gang members.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yeah, the populace will hate the enforcer of law and order and love the randomly murderous thuggish PCs. That makes sense.




If your enforcer is basically the sheriff of nottingham, trampling around without respect, diplomacy, or common sense, then yes, that'll happen.

Or take Gessler, in my country's origin myth.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that's not the situation we are talking about in this thread.
> 
> You have an arbiter (cop) and a group of mercenary PCs (gang). The gang killed the cop for no real apparent reason.




As I said, I see the PCs as way above the gang, and on a level of a duke at least, judging from personal power alone. So, if we assume your mercenary band, then we are talking about said cop trying to bully Wallenstein around, or the Armagnacs.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If your enforcer is basically the sheriff of nottingham, trampling around without respect, diplomacy, or common sense, then yes, that'll happen.




Except that's not the situation described. Perhaps you should go back and refresh your recollection of what the OP wrote.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that's not the situation described. Perhaps you should go back and refresh your recollection of what the OP wrote.




I consider the actions of th arviter as they were described (refusing an explanation) as stupid, arrogant and disrespectful.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Does no one else thinks that a smart king would not have inept arbiters, or he'd have lots of troubles with his nobles, and anyone else such clouts made mad by acting without diplomacy, or respect for personal power?



A truly smart and powerful king would rule a boring, undramatic kingdom, and thus isn't really useful for a D&D campaign  In literary criticism this is referred to as the "Never Set a Story _Inside_ the Federation Principle".

Also, all human endeavor is marked by colossal ineptitude, stupidity, short-sightedness and violence. No human system is perfect. The fact that even a strong king could have weak, cock-up Arbiters is one of the most realistic things I've seen in this thread.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> As I said, I see the PCs as way above the gang, and on a level of a duke at least, judging from personal power alone. So, if we assume your mercenary band, then we are talking about said cop trying to bully Wallenstein around, or the Armagnacs.




Well, except they probably aren't the level of a duke. That's a pure assumption on your part. In the case at hand, they are 4 5th level PCs. That's about the level of power of a group of reasonably tough veteran soldiers. I think you need to recalibrate just how powerful you think the PCs are, and also take into account that those in power are probably in power for a reason.

Even a tiny village like, say Hommlet has five benevolent NPCs 4th level of higher (and that's just off the top of my head), and at least two evil NPCs of that power. An entire dukedom will have many more.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> One could also ask oursleves if those NPCs really would back up idiots who start trouble for personal reasons.
> 
> Mighty strange, that a king backs up every stupid brainless idiot that doesn't even know how to handle adventurers without getting killed. Even stranger that such a stupid inept arbiter even made it to that post.
> 
> I mean, if the king has those high levle NPCs on call, why on earth does he let an idiot without sense motive, intelligence, or diplomacy run around as an arbiter, an idiot who just manages to get himself killed by a bunch of adventurers? Better to send in the high-levle bard who can talk to the bunch without making them mad.




Just because the arbitor didn't play nice nice with the paladin does not give the paladin the right to kill the guy. As I and others have said before rudeness is not a reason for a paladin to kill someone.

The arbitor wanted his son the paladin didn't want to give the child to him to honor the mother's wishes.

A fight happened and they killed the arbitor. Now if it was a fair fight provoked by the arbitor then why did the paladin instead of taking the baby and the body of the arbitor back to the king and explain what happened try to hide what he did. 

Burning the body and trying to hide the act does not sound like the acts of a paladin who thinks his actions were justified.

In real life if a cop is rude to me I can't just kill him even if I am say head of one of the most powerful crime families or head of a powerful church. If I do there will be consquences. It is just stupid.

I believe that when players play their pCs in a stupid way there are consquences. I will not shield them from their actions. Not every NPC they meet is going to be nice and polite to them how boring and unrealistic. I don't do it for no reason or just to mess with the players there is always a reason why an NPC would behave this way.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I consider the actions of th arviter as they were described (refusing an explanation) as stupid, arrogant and disrespectful.




Really? A group of mercenaries holds your son hostage, refuses to turn him over to you, and then murders you, and you consider the _arbiter_ to be stupid, arrogant, and disrespectful?

The level of silliness in that "logic" tells me you aren't worth bothering with anymore. You clearly have no opinions worth hearing, on any subject.

Plonk.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> In my game, high level PCs are treated with far more respect by lawmen. That avoids a lot of trouble, and seems to be more logical to me. I at least do not think too many NPCs would want to make high level PCs mad (or make any other hogh level characters mad).
> 
> It's a give and take - my PCs don't act like idiot ruffians, my NPCs don't act like that either. Or if they do, consequences happen.




I am confused so I am going to ask do these consquences also happen to to PC who behave like idiot ruffins?


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

I have a question for those who think the arbitor was wrong lets switch the situation around.

An NPC cleric comes to try and heal a woman dying in childbirth he is to late he cast speak to the dead and finds out that the mother does not want the baby to go to the father who is an adventuring PC.

The PC finds out and comes for his child. He refuses to answer the cleric questions on why he wants his child tries to take the child by force and his killed by the NPC.

Is the PC an idiot he is he in the wrong? Was the NPC cleric in the right to slay him?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> So... Stormraven...
> 
> You're saying that when you have a group of five* people gathered to play a game, the goal is to only entertain one of them?




Primarily. The PCs are guests in the GMs sandcastle, that usually he built. The primary person who needs to be entertained to keep the game going is the GM. The PCs enjoyment is secondary, assuming they want to actually continue gaming. Or they can build their own sandcastle and shape it however they want.



> _So, to continue the party analogy, what kind of drinks do you buy?  Five cases of your favorite kind, or a mixed batch (including a case of your favorite drink)?_




I buy the drinks I like. If you don't like it, deal with it, bring your own, or don't come.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 15, 2008)

SR, weren't you _not_ supposed to be posting in this thread?


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I am confused so I am going to ask do these consquences also happen to to PC who behave like idiot ruffins?




Of course. Respect goes both ways.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have a question for those who think the arbitor was wrong lets switch the situation around.
> 
> An NPC cleric comes to try and heal a woman dying in childbirth he is to late he cast speak to the dead and finds out that the mother does not want the baby to go to the father who is an adventuring PC.
> 
> ...




If all it had taken was some explaining, or a well-crafted lie, and the PC was an experienced diplomat/spy/trouble shooter, then yes, he was an idiot. The other cleric may not ahve been in the right, but right or wrong, stupid actions have consequences.

Basically, I expect people not act rudely towards those who can kill them easily, legality issues aside.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Obscured amongst the flame war here is a valid point about story construction. Which I happen to agree with.



You mean the issue of what constitutes 'meaningful choices'? In this case I was framing the issue the issue of choice primarily in terms of the players being able to choose the tone and direction of the campaign. It's their decision to play heroes or villains, fugitives or agents of the state, without prejudice, editorializing or a precipitous and preordained drop in playability. I think it requires some rather circuitous logic to label that 'railroading'. 

I realize there are other ways to approach the issue of meaningful choices. Strangely enough, I'm partial to mine.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 15, 2008)

I'd just like to ask the people considering the PCs violent thugs to, when they visualise the PCs, include tanks, close air support, ICBMs, a large chemical arsenal, powered armor, and the like to their visualization.  Again, PCs past a certain level aren't criminals, they're four-man rogue states.  They simply aren't problems that can be solved by hitting them with a hammer, because they can move faster than your hammer and can retaliate with larger and larger acts of brutish thuggery.



> In real life if a cop is rude to me I can't just kill him even if I am say head of one of the most powerful crime families or head of a powerful church. If I do there will be consquences. It is just stupid.



Say you're the head of a crime family with your own personal army, which is at least within an order of magnitude of the army of the state you're in.  There will be consequenecs, yes, but they will involve things like strongly-worded letters of protest (or alternately, quiet assassination and/or massive first strike scenarios), as opposed to "You're just a punk."

It's hard to visualize this manner of thinking, especially for those of us who grew up in the U.S., where the government will win against pretty much any private agency.  I think, for optimal visualization results, these expectations should be used.  Say that a group of foreign military agents (in plain-clothes, making it ambiguous whether or not this was black-bag or simply recreational) killed a high-ranking CIA agent in a domestic dispute.  Say that said foreign nation had a significant army, a reputation for utter ruthlessness, first-strike capacity, and a stated intention to treat unjustified assaults on its citizens as an act of war.  Do you think that the first result of the U.S. government would be to start off by trying to shoot or arrest said agents?  I think that, provided additional threat/provocation isn't offered by the agents, we'd start off by trying to find out, in detail, what the hell happened, and would avoid solutions that lead to war.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If he has idiots like that arbiter on the payroll, who don't even know how to handle PCs without getting killed, then no, he'll probably be hated by the population ("That despot! He sent us this disrespectful clout, who tried to order our good duke around, and when we defended ourselves, he had the duke hung! To Arms!")




This line of argument is getting so attenuated that it's making little sense. The PCs have no natural constituency like a real Duke would, plus we already know the locals fear them and seem to despise them as well. We know little about their relationship with the king or arbiter but, as bad as that could be, there's going to be no rallying around the PCs in this case. We already know that from the OP.

But your argument does illustrate the difference between a legit Duke and a band of elite, even super-powerful mercenaries. The Duke can probably count on the locals backing him unless he's a real bad despot. Depending on how powerful the domain is in resources, value, men, the king may have to tread lightly around a Duke's privilege, even at the expense of enforcing royal law. But a mercenary group usually has none of that and can not expect to keep whatever they have of it long. Other than the practical considerations of how to deal with them, the king has a much freer hand in what he can do and will face little opposition to enforcing the royal will.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Again, PCs past a certain level aren't criminals, they're four-man rogue states.



Kudos on your phrasing, sir.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I'd just like to ask the people considering the PCs violent thugs to, when they visualise the PCs, include tanks, close air support, ICBMs, a large chemical arsenal, powered armor, and the like to their visualization.




Yet another argument that makes no sense.

Plonk.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This line of argument is getting so attenuated that it's making little sense. The PCs have no natural constituency like a real Duke would, plus we already know the locals fear them and seem to despise them as well. We know little about their relationship with the king or arbiter but, as bad as that could be, there's going to be no rallying around the PCs in this case. We already know that from the OP.
> 
> But your argument does illustrate the difference between a legit Duke and a band of elite, even super-powerful mercenaries. The Duke can probably count on the locals backing him unless he's a real bad despot. Depending on how powerful the domain is in resources, value, men, the king may have to tread lightly around a Duke's privilege, even at the expense of enforcing royal law. But a mercenary group usually has none of that and can not expect to keep whatever they have of it long. Other than the practical considerations of how to deal with them, the king has a much freer hand in what he can do and will face little opposition to enforcing the royal will.




As the 30 years war showed, those "practical considerations" can be mighty difficult. As mallus and others said, some people see punks, we see rogue states.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yet another argument that makes no sense.
> 
> Plonk.




I think you don't see high-level PCs as others do.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> As mallus and others said, some people see punks, we see rogue states.



Also, some people see friends to entertain, others see naughty children in need of valuable lessons.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 15, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> It's hard to visualize this manner of thinking, especially for those of us who grew up in the U.S., where the government will win against pretty much any private agency.  I think, for optimal visualization results, these expectations should be used.  Say that a group of foreign military agents (in plain-clothes, making it ambiguous whether or not this was black-bag or simply recreational) killed a high-ranking CIA agent in a domestic dispute.  Say that said foreign nation had a significant army, a reputation for utter ruthlessness, first-strike capacity, and a stated intention to treat unjustified assaults on its citizens as an act of war.  Do you think that the first result of the U.S. government would be to start off by trying to shoot or arrest said agents?  I think that, provided additional threat/provocation isn't offered by the agents, we'd start off by trying to find out, in detail, what the hell happened, and would avoid solutions that lead to war.




Why are we assuming that the kingdom doesn't have this as well? And given the population disparity between the kingdoms (one with masses and one with 3), why are we assuming that the kingdom wouldn't have the depth of field, so to speak, to bring up an appropriate response to the psychos who started whole affair?

And actually, I expect, in the example, that the US would move to arrest said agents under normal circumstances. They'd have done so against the Soviets any day of the week. If they expected retailation for something so minor, then I would expect the US to engineer the deaths of said agents in ways that couldn't be traced back to the regime. So why would the kingdom not do the same?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> As the 30 years war showed, those "practical considerations" can be mighty difficult. As mallus and others said, some people see punks, we see rogue states.




And yet they still did it to the exhaustion of Spain's deep coffers, the depopulation of Germany, and the misery of millions with little thought to the consequences.  History has other examples as well. Never underestimate the power of national or royal prestige in keeping a losing fight going... not that I would assume this was even a losing fight, quite frankly.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 15, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Now explain why (a) the government wouldn't try to punish the gang, and (b) the populace would spontaneously side with the gang members.




(a) because the gang has spent four to five levels publicly running around and solving (some of) the government's problems, primarily through the use of force.

(b) because the gang has spent four to five levels publicly running around and solving (some of) the populace's problems.  Also, because the leader of that gang is called, "Robin the Hoodlum"

Later
silver


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Also, some people see friends to entertain, others see naughty children in need of valuable lessons.




Ignoring the snark aspect of this I have to say this really sums up the extremes going on in this thread.

You have to the one side the DM must entertain his friends and that is the most important thing in the game even if the DM has problems with it to the other extreme if the players act up crush them.

There is a middle ground. One where players and DM both strive to make the game fun and one where consquences for PCs actions both good and bad are part of the game and enjoyed by all.


----------



## Chimera (Apr 15, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Also, some people see friends to entertain, others see naughty children in need of valuable lessons.




Whereas I don't get off facilitating my friends acting like violent sociopaths.  (My response would pretty much be: "Go play an on-line game.")  If I'm trying to run a heroic, or at very least, 'good leaning' game and you start acting like this at my table, I'm very likely to be less than happy and try to put a stop to it.  You can see this in whatever terms you have to in order to derive whatever judgement you want to put upon it, but for me, it's "(expletive) people messing with my fun".

I don't necessarily like your judgement here, because you're being negative toward people like me who would be unhappy with their players "being jerks".  The game is a joint effort between all people at the table and if a single player or even a preponderance of the players want something other than the GM is willing to give them, it isn't necessarily wrong on the GM's part to be unhappy with players who attempt to force that unwanted behavior on the game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This line of argument is getting so attenuated that it's making little sense. The PCs have no natural constituency like a real Duke would, plus we already know the locals fear them and seem to despise them as well. We know little about their relationship with the king or arbiter but, as bad as that could be, there's going to be no rallying around the PCs in this case. We already know that from the OP.
> 
> But your argument does illustrate the difference between a legit Duke and a band of elite, even super-powerful mercenaries. The Duke can probably count on the locals backing him unless he's a real bad despot. Depending on how powerful the domain is in resources, value, men, the king may have to tread lightly around a Duke's privilege, even at the expense of enforcing royal law. But a mercenary group usually has none of that and can not expect to keep whatever they have of it long. Other than the practical considerations of how to deal with them, the king has a much freer hand in what he can do and will face little opposition to enforcing the royal will.




You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.

I said this in the thread about Shadowrun one of the reasons I love Shadowrun is that your PCs may grow in personal power but they will never be Superman invincible to the mere mortals all around them.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.
> 
> I said this in the thread about Shadowrun one of the reasons I love Shadowrun is that your PCs may grow in personal power but they will never be Superman invincible to the mere mortals all around them.




How about pretending neither side wants to provoke the other side? And tells their henchmen and underlings so?

I got no trouble running powerful parties, I just assume they are not treated like beggars, but like the power they are. It's not about ignoring their power, it's taking the power and the responsibiluty and running with it. Quite fun.

But - and this is not aimed at you, Elf Witch - one does not treat the PCs like some commoners anymore.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If he has idiots like that arbiter on the payroll, who don't even know how to handle PCs without getting killed, then no, he'll probably be hated by the population ("That despot! He sent us this disrespectful clout, who tried to order our good duke around, and when we defended ourselves, he had the duke hung! To Arms!")




Ah... "the PCs killed him, therefor he must have been incompetent" argument. A classic fallacy.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Ah... "the PCs killed him, therefor he must have been incompetent" argument. A classic fallacy.




No, the "he did not even want to talk to them" evidence. You simply don't treat people like that.

Seriously, I can't imagine a politician or arbiter acting that stupid. If it had been a PC, we'd all laugh at how he ignopred the signs of impeding violence, and provoked the party.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> How about pretending neither side wants to provoke the other side? And tells their henchmen and underlings so?
> 
> I got no trouble running powerful parties, I just assume they are not treated like beggars, but like the power they are. It's not about ignoring their power, it's taking the power and the responsibiluty and running with it. Quite fun.
> 
> But - and this is not aimed at you, Elf Witch - one does not treat the PCs like some commoners anymore.




That is how we play it as I have said I play with a group who values role playing. The situation with the arbitor would never have happened in my group. If the arbitor had attacked subdual damage would have been the order of the day. 

If an NPC mouths off we don't kill him we try and find out why he has a problem with the group.

Unless we are going up against an evil ruler the group respects the good ruler we consider him an ally and we treat him with respect. 

We get treated with respect not because we are powerful and can wipe out the kingdom but because we behave in a way that other good people willing give us respect.

The problem though is that I have seen and read on various boards the problems that happen when players play their supposed good PCs as nothing more than thugs. When that happens there is nothing in the rules that really supports stopping them unless you suddenly make every king and guardsmen as powerful as the party.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> That is how we play it as I have said I play with a group who values role playing. The situation with the arbitor would never have happened in my group. If the arbitor had attacked subdual damage would have been the order of the day.
> 
> If an NPC mouths off we don't kill him we try and find out why he has a problem with the group.
> 
> ...




Well, in some cases, there's supposedly good kings and their men acting as bullies too.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> No, the "he did not even want to talk to them" evidence. You simply don't treat people like that.
> 
> Seriously, I can't imagine a politician or arbiter acting that stupid. If it had been a PC, we'd all laugh at how he ignopred the signs of impeding violence, and provoked the party.




Actually people do behave like that. politician and lawmen often do. Why because they have the goverment and law behind them. They can get away with it because a person would have to be either stupid, insane or willing to die to kill them for behaving this way.

It is just insane the way high level DnD is written that it can't emulate the power countries and law enforcement have. 

In Shadowrun my PC may decide to kill a mouthy lone star officer and if I have enough resources I may be able to buy a new ID so they don't hunt me down. If I am high level corp person Lonestar may not be able to touch me outright but they can and may hire other runners to take me out or kidnap me. And there is a chance they will be able to pull it off. All with in the rules without the DM cheating.


----------



## takyris (Apr 15, 2008)

I read this whole thing, and I'm inclined to agree with Hong, at least partially. You have no idea how much that saddens me.

Looking at this the way it'd be in my game, uh, yeah, it's evil. When the king's man says that he intends to do something (all that was said, according to the poster, was, "I'm taking the child."), and refuses to answer your questions (which he doesn't actually have to answer, since he is the authority figure, and you aren't), legitimate options include agreeing, using your own political influence to deal with the situation, or refusing and asking for a neutral political rep to deal with this situation through legal channels, or even just running away to get to a political person with as much weight as the person you're running from. You don't generally, uh, kill that person and then desecrate the body. Anyone who finds killing someone based on the evidence provided by the original poster to be an acceptable solution would not enjoy my game... and may have some issues to work through.

Looking at this from a game-design perspective, though, I find the problem interesting. A lot of people are insisting that the players should get to do whatever they like, and it isn't fun to have consequences like other people want. I disagree with their opinion, but ultimately, I think they're on the track of the right question, which is, "In this campaign, where does the fun come from?"

In some campaigns, the fun comes from unlocking a deep story. The price you pay for that fun is some railroading, or, if not railroading, a dearth of other things to do -- you can spend all day talking to the merchant, yeah, but the only real thing of interest is the cave where all the local kids have been disappearing.

In some campaigns, the fun comes from wandering around and doing whatever comes into your head. The price you pay for that fun is the lack, usually, of a really deep story, since you're essentially sandboxing, and any story that you come up with is limited by what the DM can come up with on the spur of the moment.

In some campaigns, the fun comes from getting more powerful and making a bigger boom as you kill monsters. The price you pay for that fun can come in the form of a story limitation (you just get pointed at big nasties) or an exploration limitation (you just get pointed at one dungeon, so the DM knows where you'll be next session).

In the original post, the issue I see is that the DM wants a cause-and-effect world where actions have consequences, and the players clearly don't want that. They want to kill things and take their stuff. Both types of games can be a lot of fun, but cause-and-effect usually works better in a world with a tighter story, where players are motivated to stay in character to see what happens. Killing things and taking their stuff only works with a story if the DM is willing to come down hard and impose limitations -- ideally, without making the player look like a chump in the process. 

To OP: I would avoid the second arbiter like the plague. That's dealing with it in-game. I'd go with what others have suggested. Keep it out of game, and ask people what they want. Tell them what kind of game you'd like to run, and what kind of game you're willing to run. If you and the players can't find a good middle ground, then play something else, or have someone else run the game. Everyone needs to have fun in a game, or something is being done wrong. I wouldn't want to see my careful story-centric game upended by somebody who wants to kill anyone who is rude to him, and I wouldn't want to hurt someone's feelings by running a pure "kill anything, no rules" game and having bad things happen offstage (as setup for the next big fight) without the heroes getting the chance to stop it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Well, in some cases, there's supposedly good kings and their men acting as bullies too.




Yes and that is a nice role playing challange. How do you handle it. Kill him, set up so the King sees how he is behaving, find out why he is behaving this way?

I would find a game boring if every NPC behaved exactly the same.

I played in a Kalamar game where my PC was a high ranking member of the Kalamar royalty I had been knighted. I was working with a group of good churches to find a plague that was causing people to die and come back as undead. 

We went to Pekal which is at war with Kalamar. I had papers of neutrality from the churches to ask for permission to travel through Pekal.

The Prince's advisor a high ranking noble was who we saw first. He was out and out rude to my PC. The paladin in our group stepped between us at one point because the man had insulted my honor. He remined me of our mission.

When we got to see the Prince the Prince finally ordered the advisor to leave the room and then he explained that the  advisor was grieving. His children along with other high ranking noble's children had been kidnapped by forces loyal to the Emperor of Kalamar. When Pekal did not capitulate to the Emperor demands the children were killed and there heads sent back to their families. 

So there had been a role playing reason to explain this NPCs behavior to my high level powerful PC. 

It is possible that there was a role playing reason for the arbitors behavior as well but the PCs never found it out because they killed him.

Right now in my game the clerics of St Cuthbert are showing rudenes to the Spellsinger of the party there is a reason why this is happening. They have found out that that this Spellsinger used to work for Tiamat and they don't trust that he has really changed sides.

As I have said before there should always be a role playing reason for the behavior of NPCs.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 15, 2008)

In some cases, the fun comes from growing powerful, and then change from being glorified thugs to actually change the world through politics.

@Elf Witch: I play Shadowrun as well, and the style is different. In D&D, I see the world as far more open for PCs to rise to the top. Getting treated like shadowrunner scum even after killing the ancient red dragon is tedious, and not really realistic for D&D.

The main problem I see is that trying to change playstyles through in game actions is not going to work. If you don't want your players to act like thugs, talk to the players.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 15, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.
> 
> I said this in the thread about Shadowrun one of the reasons I love Shadowrun is that your PCs may grow in personal power but they will never be Superman invincible to the mere mortals all around them.




Why does this have to be the case?  How do kings with conventional medieval armies in the tens of thousands treat each other?  How do baronets from three dominions over treat the kings?

That's how kings should treat with a 10th-level magic-using party and a 20th-level magic-using party, respectively.



> Actually people do behave like that. politician and lawmen often do. Why because they have the goverment and law behind them. They can get away with it because a person would have to be either stupid, insane or willing to die to kill them for behaving this way.
> 
> It is just insane the way high level DnD is written that it can't emulate the power countries and law enforcement have.



Sure it can! D&D totally emulates the scenario in which one side has an overwhelming force behind them, and as such it's not only basically suicide to fight them directly, but getting them interested in your demise is 99% fatal.

Said force is called high-level PCs.  Again, discouple your mental connection between "A lot of people do what I want." and "I have power." in D&D.



> In Shadowrun my PC may decide to kill a mouthy lone star officer and if I have enough resources I may be able to buy a new ID so they don't hunt me down. If I am high level corp person Lonestar may not be able to touch me outright but they can and may hire other runners to take me out or kidnap me. And there is a chance they will be able to pull it off. All with in the rules without the DM cheating.



This can lead to players cheerfully attempting to drag the setting from dystopian cyberpunk to full-on post-apocalyptic.

Really, to reiterate what has been said eariler, one should not use in-game elements to enforce personal preferences on player behavior.  There should not be level 20 paladin police to ensure that the party is heroic.  If you want them to be heroic, you should confer with them out of game, ensure that they want to be heroic, then send the succubus and glazebreu brigade to offer them power and shinys* to be nonheroic.  Interacting with the players via characters in the world suggests that every method normally available to PCs for dealing with characters (diplomacy, avoidance, stealth, violence, mind control magic, threats and intimidation, etc.)  If you don't want PCs to have the possibility of breaking the law and casually murdering the entire judicial and legal system of a kingdom to avoid a fuss, then you should tell them so out-of-game; doing so in-game simply suggests to the PCs that this is a quest encounter, to be defeated with cleverness.  (Bad Things generally happen when PCs try to apply cleverness to the task of killing a lot of people at once.)

*For a given value of shiny.


----------



## Imp (Apr 16, 2008)

If the PCs are 5th level (has that really been determined?) then the King can take them. With a fair number of casualties, but nothing the kingdom can't deal with – in any but the lowest-demographic, harshest point-of-light setting, this will be true.

If the PCs are 10th level, things get political, unless they're in the Forgotten Realms or something. But then there is absolutely nothing keeping them in the bounds of a particular kingdom (provided access to teleport)

But my god, have the PCs get into a scrap for a while, learn their lesson, and relocate to a different kingdom. How hard _is_ this?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 16, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.




Well, I'd say it really depends, and for the most part, until the PCs are _really_ high level, this probably isn't true. Like I said, looking at most published settings and adventures (and not even including Forgotten Realms), until the PCs are 12th+ level (at least), they are certainly outclassed by the forces available to most of the various governmental authorities. Just looking at the powerful NPCs detailed in any number of classic published adventures that include civilized "home base" areas demonstrates this. Almost all have a number of PCs of 6th-12th level or so, all of whom have more than enough personal power to provide a significant brake on PCs run rampant, but who usually have a reason that they aren't going to be tramping off to adventure on a regular basis.

It is important to note also that even people who aren't normally allied with the local government will usually have a vested interest in preventing bands of random adventurers from engaging in murder, mayhem, and general mischief. The druid and the cleric may not have a reason to work together on a regular basis, but when someone starts murdering farmers and looting the town, they probably will set aside their differences and work to put a stop to this.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You just summed up why I have issues with DnD at high levels. Unless you have players willing to not act like rogue states or punks the game becomes one where everyone has to start ignoring just how powerful the PCs are. The players pretend that they can't wipe out the kings army and the DM pretends that the king is really powerful. Or if they choose to act like that the DM either has two choices bringing in more powerful NPCs to challenge them which begs the queation of where were they up until now or just throwing up your arms ending the game and starting one with 1st level PCs.




And why does any of this have to be pretend? Why are we assuming that there has to be some kind of hostility or uneasy detente between high level characters and the governments of the day? Why wouldn't there be some PCs or NPCs actually cooperating with the king because, oh, I don't know, they share the same culture, philosophical values, get on well together.
I don't really see much of a problem with there always being more powerful NPCs around a campaign than the PCs even if they haven't been seen before. It's not like they might not have other things to do with their time rather than hang out in the same area where other adventurers are bumping around. After all, someone had to come up with those 9th level spells the wizards and going to be putting in their spellbooks when they reach that level...


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 16, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> And why does any of this have to be pretend? Why are we assuming that there has to be some kind of hostility or uneasy detente between high level characters and the governments of the day? Why wouldn't there be some PCs or NPCs actually cooperating with the king because, oh, I don't know, they share the same culture, philosophical values, get on well together.
> I don't really see much of a problem with there always being more powerful NPCs around a campaign than the PCs even if they haven't been seen before. It's not like they might not have other things to do with their time rather than hang out in the same area where other adventurers are bumping around. After all, someone had to come up with those 9th level spells the wizards and going to be putting in their spellbooks when they reach that level...




Why does it have to be pretend well 13 pages of this thread is reason enough.  In these pages I have read how high level PCs are like rogue nations and that there is a little a DM can do to stop them unless he brings out the big guns and then that is unfair because now you are punishing your players for their in game actions.


There are comments on how the PCs should be treated with kid gloves by NPCs and if they are not and the so called good PCs kill them then it is really the DMs fault for playing the NPCs wrong.

I am lucky that I don't play with players who share this attidue that they can do what ever they want and nothing will happen to them. We expect there to be other higher level NPCs around and we do something evil or stupid it will catch up with us.

But even though my group does not play like this I would like to find a better system than DnD one more like Shadowrun on the way it handles damage and attacks. I like the fact that in Shadowrun a punk with a gun could get lucky enough to kill a PC.  I would like the same in my fantasy game that a peasant with a pitchfork might be able to hit just right and kill or main a PC or a city guard with a crossbow is a threat no matter how high level you get.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 16, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Why does this have to be the case?  How do kings with conventional medieval armies in the tens of thousands treat each other?  How do baronets from three dominions over treat the kings?
> 
> That's how kings should treat with a 10th-level magic-using party and a 20th-level magic-using party, respectively.
> 
> ...




Sometimes Kings with big armies go to war. But everyone knows a 20 level group of PCs can take on a normal army and win read some story hours.  

I don't enjoy the idea that four people can be the same threat as a massive army. 

I enjoy more classic type fantasy one in which King Arthur weilds a might sword but he is not more powerful than other knights of the realm. And while the knights are a match for a few peasants armed with pitchforks but a mob of peasants armed with pitch forkes is a threat.

I like magic but not the high level magic of DnD where you become god like.

I am not the one who has the idea that a lot of power means I do what I want. I have said several times that excuse for what some players do is in my opinion bad role playing. Paladins for example don't go around killing fellow soldiers because said soldiers got pissed with the party wizards antic's and started a fist fight and when the pCs looked like they were going to lose they pulled weapons and killed the soldiers. And they don't kill an arbitor of the King and then mutliate the body to hide what they have done.

It makes no sense to my a group of good PCs would go around breaking the law and killing the kings men for dumb reasons like they looked at me funny or they dissed me.

If this was not an issue why are there threads popping up like this one?


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 16, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Sometimes Kings with big armies go to war. But everyone knows a 20 level group of PCs can take on a normal army and win read some story hours.
> 
> I don't enjoy the idea that four people can be the same threat as a massive army.




The key here is that they usually aren't unless the setting is poorly designed. Look, a soldier who is a veteran of a single summer's campaign is probably 2nd or 3rd level by the time he's done. If he's been around for a while, he's probably 4th, 5th, or 6th level - granted he's probably an NPC warrior, but he's also not a pushover, especially not when he has the rest of his squad with him. Look at various D&D towns:

Hommlet (_Temple of Elemental Evil_): 8th level wizard, 4th level ranger, 7th level druid, 3rd level druid, 6th level fighter, 4th level fighter, 3rd level fighter, 2nd level fighter, 6th level cleric, 3rd level cleric. This doesn't count the various leveled inn guests.

Restenford (_The Secret of Bone Hill_): 7th level fighter, 6th level cleric, 4th level cleric, 2 3rd level clerics, 9th level wizard, 4 3rd level wizards, 2 2nd level wizards, 5th level fighter, 2 4th level fighters, 3rd level fighter, 8 2nd level fighters, 2nd level rogue. This does not include various 1st level PC classed individuals.

Hommlet (_Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_): 10th level wizard, 10th level cleric, 6th level ranger, 4th level monk/3rd level ranger, 8th level fighter, 7th level wizard, 5th level wizard, 4th level sorcerer, 6th level cleric, 4th level cleric, 3rd level cleric, 4th level paladin, 2nd level barbarian/2nd level rogue, 3rd level fighter,  5th level warrior, 4th level warrior, 5th level expert. This doesn't count various sundry 1st level PC classed characters.



> _It makes no sense to my a group of good PCs would go around breaking the law and killing the kings men for dumb reasons like they looked at me funny or they dissed me.
> 
> If this was not an issue why are there threads popping up like this one?_




Because a lot of GMs seem to think (because, IMO, they have been given bad advice to this effect and delivering consequences for actions is "railroading" somehow) that they have to let their PCs do whatever they want in order to let them have "fun". In my experience as a _player_ campaigns like that aren't usually fun, they just turn into boring hack-fests without any decisions making a real difference. As a DM, I try to make sure that the campaign world makes sense as an ongoing affair, and that the PCs can understand what the results of their actions are likely to be - and why.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Look at various D&D towns




I would count all of those as poorly designed. If there are that many high leveled characters in rinky little one-horse towns, why do you bother having adventurers?


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 16, 2008)

I think the fact that one of the PCs is a paladin is getting lost here. It's not just enforcing DM preference or narrative plausibility. It's also enforcing the rules as written. Unless the player switches to a variant paladin class, they cannot act this way without an atonement. Even if you think that they acted in the right, they have acted extremely unlawfully.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 16, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I would count all of those as poorly designed. If there are that many high leveled characters in rinky little one-horse towns, why do you bother having adventurers?




That's not even a hard to question to answer. The NPCs have other things they consider more important to deal with. They need to or would rather (for example) lead their flock, or guard the town, or engage in magical research, or they are already wealthy and don't want to risk their lives for no reason (but will to preserve their home town against miscreants wandering the streets), or they want to run their business, or any number of other pressures on their time - the threats the PCs are dealing with may be only one of many potential threats. And so on and so forth.

Just because someone is powerful doesn't mean he is going to tromp off to a dungeon at the drop of a hat - adventuring would be a dangerous, dirty, tiring business. Why do that if you can run an alchemical shop, or have a cushy job as the local chaplain, and so on. The PCs are probably willing to do these dirty, nasty jobs because they are at the bottom of the heap, have limited other options, and are seeking glory and fame (like most actual mercenaries). Usually, the reason the PCs are out adventuring is that they are considered _expendable_. If they get killed on some high risk errand, that's no big loss to anyone who really cares. But if they start threatening thepeace of the streets, well then, they are threatening the very safety and wealth of those individuals, and _that'_ going to draw a reaction.

And the classed population in those adventures isn't even that big a deal - Daggerford has many more (granted that is a Forgotten Realms adventure, but still). Just about _every_ published adventure the includes a 'civilized" area has populations of similar numbers of adventurers, and yet all of them seem to figure out how to have a reason for the PCs to be adventuring.


----------



## NilesB (Apr 16, 2008)

Final Attack said:
			
		

> Now as I see it Vincent had right to claim his son.  Also the PCs instigated the attack and made sure it was a battle to the death.



As the PC's probably saw it Vincent was a dangerous psychopath who was trying to kidnap an innocent under their protection.

Vincent did everything in his power to avoid dispelling this impression, short of stabbing the Paladin for wanting confirmation that he meant the child no harm.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 16, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> We're talking about a highly mobile force that can wreck havoc on a kingdom. The King might very well win, but the kingdom will be suffering.




Perhaps if we're talking super high levels.  Personally, I've never played higher than about 15th level in 3e, as it bogs down into Tax Returns and Requests for Proposals above about 12th level, IMHO.



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> I think you either play a non-standard D&D game, where kingdoms have much greater ressources than in the DMG, or you underestimate the destruction a high-level party can cause.




I'm guessing you play at higher levels than I do.  To me, the levels of NPC's in the DMG are actually a bit high, at least in small villages.  I generally make up the high level NPC's and warriors independently, and figure out the Commoners and Experts by the rules.

Another factor is that my game world has been played in for 27 years now.  There are a lot of retired 1st Edition characters as NPCs, and they serve the powers that be.  And it's Greyhawk, so there are all the retired characters from the Lake Geneva campaign, too.  If the king hires Erac's Cousin to take you out . . . that gets interesting.    



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, the King has his own high-level adventurers able to handle such threats, but then - what the heck were the PCs doing then until now, and where have those guys been during the last three crisises?




Easily answered.  Of the Lake Geneva campaign NPCs who have ever even peripherally been involved in my campaign:
-- Tenser is in his tower on the Nyr Dyv, doing what archmages do
-- Erac's Cousin is plotting and adventuring across the world
-- Robilar is doing likewise

For the high level retired adventurers from my campaigns (high level meaning 9+ to me, name level in 1st edition)
-- One patrols the Borderlands, alone
-- Others are on a long mission to Blackmoor
-- One is the high priest in the main castle of the ruler.  He mostly heals wounded from the war, and makes magic items.
-- One guards the secrets in the basement of the castle and does special missions occasionally.
-- A mage does research and makes items in his own tower.
-- Others are far, far away.

The PCs are needed because most of the country's military and adventuring resources are focused on the war.  The PC's go on missions to recover items for the war effort (the magic apples from the Sunless Citadel, the Daoud's Lanthorn from the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, the Cauldron of Plenty) and to deal with insurgencies and other problems that crop up in the absence of the usual troops.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 16, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> It still comes down to the adventurers - especially if they're above 12th level or so - having a unique degree of personal power that our real world has never had to deal with, so we have no methods in place for it.




Nod, 12th level is about right on where the divide is.  For me, it becomes unplayable somewhere slightly north of there -- it's a supers game and it's too complicated to be any fun.  For others, I guess it BECOMES playable at those levels.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If Mr Random Mad Bomber can teleport, bounce bullets, and stuff like that then Mr Random Mad Bomber would still be at large no matter the wishes of the State; the State would probably be powerless against him and people would have to accept that fact.




This doesn't follow.  If the PC's are dark-suit Spider-man, who's to say there's not a Batman or even a Superman at the King's disposal to take care of such problems?  Can't the king light the bat bonfire in such an emergency.

The "PC's can do whatever they want" school seems to think PC's automatically have the overwhelming majority of non-demonic power in a campaign.  That doesn't make ring true to me -- a larger and larger share of power, but not all of it.  "There's always a bigger fish" makes more sense to me.  And the power of a crowd makes sense too.

In our world, multi-billionaire Wall Street wizards like Warren Buffet and George Soros wield incredible amounts of money and power.  Soros helped influence the transition of post-Communist countries like Hungary, and he once "broke the pound" from its exchange rate mechanism and helped bring down a British Prime Minister, it's true, but if he murdered a cop or a government official, the UK/EU/Hungary would not fear to go after him because he might cause a run on the pound or euro or florint!



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Lack of rules knowledge also helps this. The Archmage might be 22nd level and have a _contingency _ spell on him to _teleport _ him to a safe location when he drops below 10 HP but I bet he doesn't carry _that 1500gp statue that has to be on his person_ (nor the majority of his magic items) with him into the _bathtub_.
> 
> Did you, off the top of your head, know that about _contingency_? I didn't.




Me neither, but Contingency has never been a popular spell with the folks I game with.  <shrug>  We're rarely high enough level to get 6th level spells.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Your 0-level maid delivers his wine, then hits him in the stomach and holds him under water. No spellcasting, no holding his breath; three rounds of missing his dump-stat CON saves and he's dead no matter how many hit points he has. I'm sure there's some weird-ass Feat that lets you conjure without speaking but most people aren't going to have _all _ the weird-ass feats that let you do something like that.




Nod, very true.  It's not hard to think of ways to kill other than reducing HP.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I can't think of any historical situation in which a ruler (or ruling group) that could not defend itself stayed in power for any appreciable length of time.




Failed states are not uncommon.  Somalia is a good example.  But Somalia has no particular ruler.  And of course the writ of the rulers of countries like Sri Lanka, Burma, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan does not carry to all corners of their alleged domains . . . 

But if we're talking a non-failed state, without lawless "tribal areas" or civil wars on, yes, pretty much a ruler must rule to stay ruler.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I usually try to drag many more adventure possibilities across a party's path than they could ever hope to follow up on - the ones they let drop will either (a) fester and get worse, or (b) get solved by another group, who will get the associated fame and rewards.




Interesting . . .


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 16, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In real life if a cop is rude to me I can't just kill him even if I am say head of one of the most powerful crime families or head of a powerful church. If I do there will be consquences. It is just stupid.
> 
> I believe that when players play their pCs in a stupid way there are consquences. I will not shield them from their actions. Not every NPC they meet is going to be nice and polite to them how boring and unrealistic. I don't do it for no reason or just to mess with the players there is always a reason why an NPC would behave this way.




Double nod.  Perhaps the arbiter was perceived as rude by the PC's, but if so, it didn't seem like that was the OP's intention as DM.  He may just have been playing him as a taciturn, dour kind of cop.  Or he may have been kinda lazy about it and not bothered with coming up with dialog to answer the PC's in an interaction with he thought didn't require it, which the players saw as rudeness from the NPC.  Who knows?

Truly, I have no idea why the original situation came up at all -- it sounded unusual for D&D.  But to me the basic truth is -- party kills cop because they don't like a conversation with him.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 16, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Say that a group of foreign military agents (in plain-clothes, making it ambiguous whether or not this was black-bag or simply recreational) killed a high-ranking CIA agent in a domestic dispute.  Say that said foreign nation had a significant army, a reputation for utter ruthlessness, first-strike capacity, and a stated intention to treat unjustified assaults on its citizens as an act of war.  Do you think that the first result of the U.S. government would be to start off by trying to shoot or arrest said agents?  I think that, provided additional threat/provocation isn't offered by the agents, we'd start off by trying to find out, in detail, what the hell happened, and would avoid solutions that lead to war.




You don't fight a Cold War by letting your agents get killed and doing nothing about it.  Look at the recent situation where the Soviets . . . err, Russian Federation . . . err, parties unknown poisoned a Russia dissident in London with radioactive chemicals.  Did the Brits cower and say "Oh my, I hope Putin doesn't do it again."  No, they investigated and got into a diplomatic row with the Russians.  Diplomats were expelled.  "Cultural exchange missions" were closed, and so on.  In the height of the Cold War, a Ruskie spy very likely would have been captured or assassinated in retaliation for messing with London . . . not just expelled.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 16, 2008)

Our current party is at level 16, and has been at level 14+ for years (We play weekly, but do not give out exp, we only level up when the group decides to, the campaign started back in 2E). It's set in the Forgotten Realms, but with less magic items and mages, and not many if any epic characters. So, the characters are near the top of the "food chain" level-wise.

More important than that however is that they have a very, very good reputation in their country. They battled countless foes of the realm, spoiled plots inside and outside the country, handled diplomatic meetings and put down rebellions. The earned the gratitude of the ruler, and rose in status among the ruling churches, earning titles.

While I am not a "simulation tops everything!" DM, verisimilitude means that unless the group goes directly against the ruler or a church, they can basically do whatever they want. If an NPC is rude to them, especially a foreigner, they could kill said foreigner, and the matter would be handled either by hushing it up, arranging an "it was an accident", or by posthumously condemning the victim. Or by simply ignoring the incident. Or by acepting their deed as justice - after all, they are part of the government. That's in their country, of course. But everyone knows that - and there really are not many who would insult them.

Outside their country, it depends on the situation. When travelling on a diplomatic mission, they have the power of their country behind them (unless they do something really stupid, like starting a war), and if someone is rude or insulting to them, it's usually handled by a duel.

So, if they were in that country from the OP, and the arbiter came to them, and acted in the way described, they'd tell him, quite haughtily, to not mess with them, and to suffer the consequences of attacking not just a representant of the Empire, but also a priestess of one of the ruling churches. If they felt insulted, there'd be a duel challenge, and if refused, most likely the "honorless cur" would be dealt with. And the king of the realm would apologise for having employed a "temporarily insane" idiot. Behind the scenes, there'd be all kind of maneuvers, and some repercussions, but the king would not go to war over this.

But then, the arbiter in my campaign would not have tried to bully them, would probably have been all nice and polite, and gotten the baby without any trouble just for mentioning that he was his father - the group generally respects lawful authorities unless there's something fishy - like said authority refusing to answer basic questions.

I've played the standard campaigns before, where PCs rise in levels, and can flatten mountains, yet are still treated like some dinky mercenaries by nobles. It mostly did not really work out that well, and felt contrived. Once I started adjusting the status of the PCs, and integrating them in the power structure, it went far more smoothly. Power now comes with reputation, respect, status - and responsibility.

The carrot of rewarding PCs with status worked far better than the stick of using high-level NPCs to beat them down. More fun for everyone involved.

And in areas like the City of Brass, the PCs still are pushed around, because they have no weight there. But they know that they can change this.


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Apr 16, 2008)

You know, this has been gone over many times in many ways in this thread, however, I must ask, does anyone really believe that a person who ends the life of another due simply to the way they addressed them in conversation, is a Hero?  Or even a respectable human being?  Such actions strike me as those of the worst of humanity, engaging in dominion over others due simply to the fact that they have the power to do so. 

As for the rest, the consequences, the fallout, and the retribution, that is entirely dependent on the world the DM has created.  In most simulationist and published worlds, the PCs would not survive for long taking such actions.  Not all worlds are like this, however, and if the one in question is not, than the PCs essentially have free reign.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 16, 2008)

Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> You know, this has been gone over many times in many ways in this thread, however, I must ask, does anyone really believe that a person who ends the life of another due simply to the way they addressed them in conversation, is a Hero?  Or even a respectable human being?  Such actions strike me as those of the worst of humanity, engaging in dominion over others due simply to the fact that they have the power to do so.




I won't call them a hero according to my modern definition, but they are what I see medieval heroes as - ready to defend what they see as their honor at the drop of a hat. Very violent.

Remember the classic "Three Musketeers" movies? D'Artagnan got into three duels in a few minutes, and all over things that were basically nothings. That's how I see D&D heroes, generally.

I don't see human life in medieval times as having the same value as it does today, but as having much less value than your honor.

Usually though, the adventures are set in a realm where people have power over others simply because of their birth - feudalism. If I can accept nobility having priviledges, if I can acept a king as being good, then I can accept heroes who don't value human life that much when weighted against what they consider their honor.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 16, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> You don't fight a Cold War by letting your agents get killed and doing nothing about it.  Look at the recent situation where the Soviets . . . err, Russian Federation . . . err, parties unknown poisoned a Russia dissident in London with radioactive chemicals.  Did the Brits cower and say "Oh my, I hope Putin doesn't do it again."  No, they investigated and got into a diplomatic row with the Russians.  Diplomats were expelled.  "Cultural exchange missions" were closed, and so on.  In the height of the Cold War, a Ruskie spy very likely would have been captured or assassinated in retaliation for messing with London . . . not just expelled.




Well, that's the thing.  You don't fight a cold war at all with a nation-state that's let you know that they will cheerfully respond to any provocation with carpet-bombing and work up from there; you either keep things diplomatic at almost any cost, or make damn sure you strike first.

That isn't to say that the U.S. wouldn't have replied to the hypothetical nation-state representing the abilities and inclinations of high-level PCs with "Hah! You're bluffing." and said execution; it's simply that a pattern of this behavior would be maladaptive for the continued survival of the U.S. and stability of the campaign world.



			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> You know, this has been gone over many times in many ways in this thread, however, I must ask, does anyone really believe that a person who ends the life of another due simply to the way they addressed them in conversation, is a Hero? Or even a respectable human being? Such actions strike me as those of the worst of humanity, engaging in dominion over others due simply to the fact that they have the power to do so.
> 
> As for the rest, the consequences, the fallout, and the retribution, that is entirely dependent on the world the DM has created. In most simulationist and published worlds, the PCs would not survive for long taking such actions. Not all worlds are like this, however, and if the one in question is not, than the PCs essentially have free reign.



Hero is a term of art in D&D, referring to the nature of levels one has taken and (generally) how many of them a given character has.  The paladin standing up to defend the peasant village and the blackguard besieging it are both heros; the commoner1 who stands beside the paladin to keep him from being surrounded and fight on a little longer is engaging in heroic action (and damn well should end the battle as a fighter1 if he survives) but is not a hero.  This definition does not match up to the generally-accepted real-life definition of heros and heroism.  Terms of art are like that.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2008)

Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> You know, this has been gone over many times in many ways in this thread, however, I must ask, does anyone really believe that a person who ends the life of another due simply to the way they addressed them in conversation, is a Hero?



The heroes of the Iliad would certainly kill someone for the way they addressed them. Usually with a spear. Also, not all PC's are heroic, not even in the Homeric (Greek) sense, though most are in fact heroic in the Homeric (Simpson) sense... 



> Or even a respectable human being?



We're not talking about human beings, we're talking about (usually badly drawn) fictional characters. That changes the context. Personally, I admire plenty of disrespectable fictional characters; Iago, Travis Bickle, Tony Soprano, Gaius Baltar...



> Such actions strike me as those of the worst of humanity, engaging in dominion over others due simply to the fact that they have the power to do so.



Power fantasies often have an ugly side, which is why we frequently relegate them to fictional environments.  



> In most simulationist and published worlds, the PCs would not survive for long taking such actions.



There is nothing remotely realistic or simulationist about a setting in which all cop killers are brought to justice, every time, regardless of the circumstances. A setting like that is one dominated by narrative/thematic imperatives --ie, justice always prevails, the 'good guys' always win-- not rigorous simulation.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 16, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Personally, I admire plenty of disrespectable fictional characters; Iago, Travis Bickle, Tony Soprano, Gaius Baltar...




Note: none of these are a paladin or a reasonable facsimile thereof. I like those kinds of characters too, but one of these PCs can't be like those guys.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 16, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> ...one should not use in-game elements to enforce personal preferences on player behavior.  There should not be level 20 paladin police to ensure that the party is heroic.  If you want them to be heroic, you should confer with them out of game, ensure that they want to be heroic, then send the succubus and glazebreu brigade to offer them power and shinys* to be nonheroic.




Since we're dealing with a paladin PC here, I'd have a visit from celestials to have an intervention, as they're concerned about the state of his soul. If that fails, well, off to the alternative paladin classes you go!


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> I like those kinds of characters too, but one of these PCs can't be like those guys.



Not without deliberately breaking the rules, no. But so long as there's group consensus, the rules are meant to be broken. I'd probably make the character into a Blackguard, or an alternate paladin class as you suggested. Though it would be intriguing, from a DM'ing perspective, to try to rationalize things (and reconfigure the surrounding narrative) so that the PC remains a paladin. I think I'd enjoy the challenge.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 16, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Not without deliberately breaking the rules, no. But so long as there's group consensus, the rules are meant to be broken. I'd probably make the character into a Blackguard, or an alternate paladin class as you suggested. Though it would be intriguing, from a DM'ing perspective, to try to rationalize things (and reconfigure the surrounding narrative) so that the PC remains a paladin. I think I'd enjoy the challenge.




I'd have no problem with a world where a paladin's code required him or her to defend his or her honor, to the death if needed. "Good" in my game is not what we define as good in our times.

But then, in my campaign, Paladins have a mandate from the gods themselves, which means there are not many who try to abuse them. "It was god's will" is hard to argue with, if the paladin has not fallen from grace. 

If a player plays a paladin, I don't try to make them fall, or punish the PC in game, if they are about to commit something I deem evil I'd talk to the player before it happens, since I assume that a paladin has a strong enough sense of what's right and good that he'd not slip into evil without a clear, and informed decision by the player.
On the other hand, paladins are so special in my campaign, most common people rever them as god's champion, they don't see them as stick in the muds, lawful-stupid bullies, etc. My view on paladins are heavily influenced by "The deeds of Paksenarion" and "Oath of Swords", and I try to get the "a paladin's actions are influenced by the gods" vibe going.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Apr 16, 2008)

You know, there's an easy way for players to get away with doing anything they feel like if all consequences are handled in-game.  They can just have their characters committ suicide after every adventure.  Doesn't make much difference then if their paladin falls or the DM has a crazed band of high level adventurers after them if the PCs slit their own throats.

Just keep some back-up characters on hand for if your PC gets into a tight spot and you need to have him committ suicide in the middle of a game session.  PC suicide- is there any problem it can't solve?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> PC suicide- is there any problem it can't solve?



I don't really have an answer for that, but the question's incredibly funny and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter...


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 16, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Though it would be intriguing, from a DM'ing perspective, to try to rationalize things (and reconfigure the surrounding narrative) so that the PC remains a paladin. I think I'd enjoy the challenge.




So now evil actions are actually good? I knew that ignore lists existed for a reason.

Plonk.


----------



## Chimera (Apr 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So now evil actions are actually good? I knew that ignore lists existed for a reason.
> 
> Plonk.




First off, you've blatantly ignored a moderator warning not to post in this thread anymore.  Secondly this is the third or fourth "plonk" you've posted here, which is usually an indication that one is now putting the other person on Ignore.  Something else not really cool on this board.

Put the keyboard down and back away slowly.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2008)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Whereas I don't get off facilitating my friends acting like violent sociopaths.



I can't really blame you for that, but a teeny part of me is thinking: that's the perfect job description for a DM! (seeing as D&D is ultimately about killing things and taking their stuff and so on and so forth). 



> If I'm trying to run a heroic, or at very least, 'good leaning' game and you start acting like this at my table, I'm very likely to be less than happy and try to put a stop to it.



I didn't mean to come off as critical of your preferences. My criticisms were (supposed to be) directed at the methods some DM's used to 'put a stop to' in-game behavior they didn't approve of.  It's always a good idea to talk openly with your players about expectations, campaign direction, and potential problems/dissatisfactions. But it's never a good idea to treat your presumably adult friends like they were children, particularly when you disagree with them over the proper way to enjoy a recreational pursuit. 



> I don't necessarily like your judgement here, because you're being negative toward people like me who would be unhappy with their players "being jerks".



I didn't mean to come off as judgmental, either. Apologies if that was unclear.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So now evil actions are actually good?



That depends on the quality of the rationalization.



> I knew that ignore lists existed for a reason.
> 
> PLONK



I find this very hard to believe.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 16, 2008)

It's ok Mallus, maybe he'll finally stop talking.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 16, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The heroes of the Iliad would certainly kill someone for the way they addressed them. Usually with a spear. Also, not all PC's are heroic, not even in the Homeric (Greek) sense, though most are in fact heroic in the Homeric (Simpson) sense...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about human beings, we're talking about (usually badly drawn) fictional characters. That changes the context. Personally, I admire plenty of disrespectable fictional characters; Iago, Travis Bickle, Tony Soprano, Gaius Baltar...
> ...




The heroes of the Illiad would kill if someone insulted them it is part of the culture. I am working on a greek style game. In a game world like that behavior from the PCs like that is acceptable. 

Or if you want to play a more gritty game where vikings come and burn and kill and rape the PCs playing vikings would not be considered evil in their own culture.

The issue is what does the DM think is evil in his world. The OP had an issue with the behavior of his players. He is not okay with the paladin playing this way. Personally I think a lot of his problems is that he waited so long to finally try and stop the behavior.

DMs and PCs need to be on the same page as to what is expected in the game world.

In my game the player playing a paladin and I had a discussion ahead of time on how a paladin is expected to behave in my world. 

We can debate endlessly over who was right the arbitor or the PCs we can bring in examples from our own games but in the end it does not matter because every DMs world is different amd we were not there so we really don't know exactly what happened. As someone pointed out maybe what the PCs saw as rudeness was something else.

The issue is how to handle it out of game is the best talk to your players.

But in game consquences for actions is how the game should be played. Does that mean if the players turn evil they get hunted down and lose not necessarily. As you point out cop killers are not always brought to justice. But that does not mean that the law ignores the crime.

If you want to play it with some realism then as the DM don't give your investigators DM knowledge roll gather info and set the modifiers based on how much evidence there is. If no one saw what the PCs did and speak with dead does not work then the PCs got away with it this time.

Consquences should be based on the players actions. If they play evil smart reward them for it  the same as you would good parties who play smart.

If a group of high level PC kill one of your lawmen then move on it is very possible the ruler will look the other way. But if the PCs keep killing people in your kingdom then you will have to do something to stop them or you lose control of your land. So you bring in bigger guns.

That is not using DM fiat that is just common sense. It is the same in a good game the evil side brings in bigger guns to stop the PCs from thwarting their plans so why would good not do the same. 

In Dnd there is no gurantee that the PCs will win. Sometimes the PCs lose and sometimes they win and that is how it should be played regardless of the PCs alignment.

Let the dice decide. The minute you start using your DM power to punish or teach the players the game is over.

I don't think that throwing consquences at PCs that are based on their level is teaching them a lesson it is giving them a challange to overcome based on what has happened in the game before.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 16, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Our current party is at level 16, and has been at level 14+ for years (We play weekly, but do not give out exp, we only level up when the group decides to, the campaign started back in 2E). It's set in the Forgotten Realms, but with less magic items and mages, and not many if any epic characters. So, the characters are near the top of the "food chain" level-wise.
> 
> More important than that however is that they have a very, very good reputation in their country. They battled countless foes of the realm, spoiled plots inside and outside the country, handled diplomatic meetings and put down rebellions. The earned the gratitude of the ruler, and rose in status among the ruling churches, earning titles.
> 
> ...




I have said to you on another thread that I think your games sounds like a fun game and one I would love to play in.

I would like to point out something the PCs in your game have earned the respect of the people and the goverment. The benefit of the doubt would be given to them because of their past deeds.

The PCs in the OP game have not done anything to earn the respect of the King. They killed fellow soldiers who were on their side because they were going to lose a brawl. A brawl that started after the party wizard teased and provoked these soldiers by night after night distrubing their sleep with cantrips.

I think the PCs are playing their characters as psychotic. I don't think the players in your game played their character this way.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2008)

> Personally I think a lot of his problems is that he waited so long to finally try and stop the behavior.



I agree. The DM had been giving his consent for a while, without ever warning the players OCC that he has becoming uncomfortable with campaign's change in tone/direction. 



> DMs and PCs need to be on the same page as to what is expected in the game world.



Absolutely. 

But I still feel pretty strongly that a DM should indulge his players and their play style preference(s), right up until the point they themselves stop enjoying the game. 



> The issue is how to handle it out of game is the best talk to your players.



Absolutely. 



> Consquences should be based on the players actions.



Absolutely.



> The minute you start using your DM power to punish or teach the players the game is over.



Absolutely.



> I don't think that throwing consequences at PCs that are based on their level is teaching them a lesson it is giving them a challenge to overcome based on what has happened in the game before.



Absolutely. 

I've been saying that all along. My point was that in-game consequences need to the playable. When a DM decides that the consequences for a given party action is a no-win situation for the PC's, they should politely fold the campaign (and then drink).


----------



## takyris (Apr 16, 2008)

I have no interest in playing a game in which people are considered good by their peers for doing actions that I, a real-world 21st-century North American guy, would consider evil. I have no interest in running such a game, either.

Mileage may vary, but "Ah, I can be evil, because this is a different culture that doesn't mind if I act in a manner that would get me labeled a hateful jackass in the real world!" does not fulfill any particular fantasy for me.

Good luck to those for whom it does. Seriously. Not snarky. Not "You need to get help." Not "It sucks to be you." Seriously. Your type of fun is not my type of fun, and I hope we don't end up in a game together and force the DM to choose which type of fun he wants us to have, but if you're doing it in a game and not real life, knock yourself out.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 16, 2008)

takyris said:
			
		

> I have no interest in playing a game in which people are considered good by their peers for doing actions that I, a real-world 21st-century North American guy, would consider evil. I have no interest in running such a game, either.
> 
> Mileage may vary, but "Ah, I can be evil, because this is a different culture that doesn't mind if I act in a manner that would get me labeled a hateful jackass in the real world!" does not fulfill any particular fantasy for me.
> 
> Good luck to those for whom it does. Seriously. Not snarky. Not "You need to get help." Not "It sucks to be you." Seriously. Your type of fun is not my type of fun, and I hope we don't end up in a game together and force the DM to choose which type of fun he wants us to have, but if you're doing it in a game and not real life, knock yourself out.




So, I take it you don't have knights, kings, or any other feudalisit stuff in your game? Nor any non-democratic country that's considered good?

After all, just by refusing democracy a king is evil by our standards.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 16, 2008)

takyris said:
			
		

> I have no interest in playing a game in which people are considered good by their peers for doing actions that I, a real-world 21st-century North American guy, would consider evil. I have no interest in running such a game, either.
> 
> Mileage may vary, but "Ah, I can be evil, because this is a different culture that doesn't mind if I act in a manner that would get me labeled a hateful jackass in the real world!" does not fulfill any particular fantasy for me.
> 
> Good luck to those for whom it does. Seriously. Not snarky. Not "You need to get help." Not "It sucks to be you." Seriously. Your type of fun is not my type of fun, and I hope we don't end up in a game together and force the DM to choose which type of fun he wants us to have, but if you're doing it in a game and not real life, knock yourself out.




Here's the thing: considered by whom?  In D&D, there are absolute, observable answers to moral questions.  You can determine whether or not a given action egregiously violates the dignity of sentient beings by having a paladin do it, then check the paladin for his powers.

That being said, one of my campaign worlds has a kingdom is experiencing an institutional level of corruption.  For a while, the kingdom was solidly LG, if a bit heavy on the L, until a series of events showed how massively profitable necromancy could be under certain conditions.  After all, it was just being done on animals and nonhumanoids slain in battle or banditry, right?  They'd be left to rot on the ground anyway.  Why not get some work out of them?  Why not a lot of work, in fact?  When the G religion objected, it was politely informed that its state religion status had just become negotiable, and a lot of the high-level clergy decided to leave rather than start a war.  This nation has a very clear idea on what is good and what is evil in the campaign world; they just have decided that if the definition of good includes sending living troops into battle unnecessarily and the definition of evil includes suddenly-tripled harvests as undead oxen and horses pull ploughs tirelessly, they will quite cheerfully sign up for team evil.  They don't do the random killing or tyrantry; the leadership of the kingdom has decided to do what's best for the kingdom, and that currently includes a lot of evil.  If the forces of good enable the mass-production of deathless for industrial use, the kingdom will hop from evil to good in a heartbeat, but for now, evil achieves their goals, so they do evil.

Does it make a difference if good is absolute, but ignored?


----------



## takyris (Apr 16, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> So, I take it you don't have knights, kings, or any other feudalisit stuff in your game? Nor any non-democratic country that's considered good?
> 
> After all, just by refusing democracy a king is evil by our standards.




Who is the "we" in this "our"?

In the fantasy-world D&D game my group plays, there's a line between the new-blood nobles, who mistreat the servants and look down on the peasants, and the old-blood nobles who respect the people and see themselves as defenders of the people. It may not be realistic, but I didn't sign on to play a Reality Roleplaying Game.

And please don't play Socratic Garbage with me. When I can see you loading the question, you're not loading it very well.


----------



## takyris (Apr 16, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Here's the thing: considered by whom?  ...
> Does it make a difference if good is absolute, but ignored?




That campaign sounds interesting, and a far cry from "I want to play a game in which my guys can attack and kill anyone who talks to them in a disrespectful manner because we're *extreme heroes* and because this one Arthurian Romance I read did it, it must be okay, and I'm not an antisocial jackass for wanting to roleplay it!"


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 16, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I've been saying that all along. My point was that in-game consequences need to the playable. When a DM decides that the consequences for a given party action is a no-win situation for the PC's, they should politely fold the campaign (and then drink).




I think we are on the same page.

I know I stand up a lot for DMs right to have fun too. But I do believe that a good DM tries to make the game fun for everyone.

In my game I had not planned on having corruption in the churches be a part of the campaign. One of the players wanted to play a cleric/paladin who ferrets it out. I changed a few things and fit it in. 

My one player loves puzzles not my favorite I will admit but I have put them in the game.

As the DM I am having fun because I am getting to help tell a story about epic heroes and the changes they are bringing to the world. In my world there have never been any paladins or many priests who could cast divine magic. 

My PCs will become the heroes of legend with spells named sfter them.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 17, 2008)

takyris said:
			
		

> Who is the "we" in this "our"?
> 
> In the fantasy-world D&D game my group plays, there's a line between the new-blood nobles, who mistreat the servants and look down on the peasants, and the old-blood nobles who respect the people and see themselves as defenders of the people. It may not be realistic, but I didn't sign on to play a Reality Roleplaying Game.
> 
> And please don't play Socratic Garbage with me. When I can see you loading the question, you're not loading it very well.




It is meant to be pretty clear. Feudalism is evil. Period.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> It is meant to be pretty clear. Feudalism is evil. Period.




Eh, I'd say that feudalism is evil contingent on human nature.  When you can not only trivially root out corruption, but literally call down a good and wise angel from the heavens and explain "Look, we had to kill the previous king a bit on account of the slavery and the wars and all.  Can you stand in as regent until we drum up an acceptable infant heir for you to raise?"

I'd say that feudalism is not in and of itself evil, but encourages evil, and pretty much requires people not to be people to stay nonevil over time.  This is a problem in reality; it is not in D&D.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 17, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Eh, I'd say that feudalism is evil contingent on human nature.  When you can not only trivially root out corruption, but literally call down a good and wise angel from the heavens and explain "Look, we had to kill the previous king a bit on account of the slavery and the wars and all.  Can you stand in as regent until we drum up an acceptable infant heir for you to raise?"
> 
> I'd say that feudalism is not in and of itself evil, but encourages evil, and pretty much requires people not to be people to stay nonevil over time.  This is a problem in reality; it is not in D&D.




Of course it's not a problem in D&D, I am just noting that by our modern standards, a feudal system is evil since it violates basic human rights.

In D&D, it can be good, neutral or evil.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Of course it's not a problem in D&D, I am just noting that by our modern standards, a feudal system is evil since it violates basic human rights.
> 
> In D&D, it can be good, neutral or evil.




And yet the feudal system was developed in response to various crises developing out of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, so it replaced total lack of security with security. Not as good as modern Western values, by modern standards, perhaps, but in some ways you had to take what you could get.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 17, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I would count all of those as poorly designed. If there are that many high leveled characters in rinky little one-horse towns, why do you bother having adventurers?




Whether or not a rinkydink little town has higher leveled characters or not could depend a lot on its history. Hommlett has a fairly recent history of considerable violence and is still known to be badgered by bandits, all as a legacy of the Temple of Elemental Evil. Any consideration of whether or not a location should be able to support higher level characters should include the local history and danger level. 
A frontier town could have more higher level characters than a town in the well settled and patrolled core, even if smaller, simply because there's more opportunity to grow through the standard mechanic of life and death conflict.


----------



## NilesB (Apr 17, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So now evil actions are actually good?



Well, according to the majority of posters on this thread protecting an infant from abduction is an unforgivably malign act.


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Apr 17, 2008)

The child in question is the NPCs son.  Killing a person for demanding that you turn over *his* child qualifies as a malign and wicked act in my book.  I am certain any parent would be apalled at the thought of anyone, let alone strangers they barely knew, telling them they could not take their offspring with them.  The only surprising part about the demand for his child was that he did not also demand his daughter.  Perhaps he felt he could be a good caretaker for a male child, but lacked the ability or lifestyle to raise a female child.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If a player plays a paladin, I don't try to make them fall, or punish the PC in game, if they are about to commit something I deem evil I'd talk to the player before it happens, since I assume that a paladin has a strong enough sense of what's right and good that he'd not slip into evil without a clear, and informed decision by the player.
> On the other hand, paladins are so special in my campaign, most common people rever them as god's champion, they don't see them as stick in the muds, lawful-stupid bullies, etc.




Nod.  That fits my campaign, except the bit about being revered -- I'd say no more so than clerics for their religious nature, but they are often the "face" of a party and the hero of bardic renditions of the party's deeds.  But the "hero" could just as easily be a Fighter.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> a city guard with a crossbow is a threat no matter how high level you get.




How about chain criticals?  As in 20, 19, 20, 19 with a light crossbow would be 1d8, x2, x2, x2.  6d8 or 8d8, either way, it's a very rare possibility, but possibly important to a PC.  Probably ought to require a 20 to chain, though . . .


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> PC suicide- is there any problem it can't solve?




Well, I've never allowed anybody to start a character higher level than level 1, so you might not enjoy exercising this option in my campaign.

Plus, I think the DM and all the other players would seriously ask you to see a shrink or talk to somebody.  Not a good sign, I think.   :\


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> There is nothing remotely realistic or simulationist about a setting in which all cop killers are brought to justice, every time, regardless of the circumstances. A setting like that is one dominated by narrative/thematic imperatives --ie, justice always prevails, the 'good guys' always win-- not rigorous simulation.




We (the non-evil supporters) never said the cops would succeed in killing the bad guy PC's who off'd their comrade in arms.  We merely said they would try, with all their might.

And like the Terminator, they will never stop trying.

Let me give you a real life example.  My hometown has 4500 people.  In the 1920s, we had our one and only murder.  A New York State trooper was killed by party or parties unknown.  You know when the NY State troopers gave up on this case and stopped having a presence in our town?  NEVER.  There's still a tiny barracks -- two troopers -- there ever since they came to investigate.  We have our own town police department, but I don't think the troopers are going anywhere.


----------



## NilesB (Apr 17, 2008)

Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> The child in question is the NPCs son.  Killing a person for demanding that you turn over *his* child qualifies as a malign and wicked act in my book.  I am certain any parent would be apalled at the thought of anyone, let alone strangers they barely knew, telling them they could not take their offspring with them.  The only surprising part about the demand for his child was that he did not also demand his daughter.  Perhaps he felt he could be a good caretaker for a male child, but lacked the ability or lifestyle to raise a female child.



The PCs Had been warned that Vincent was a potential danger to the infants.

When the PC's tried to get assurances of the child's safety from him, his response was a(n implicit) threat rather than any evidence of parental love. Trying to threaten a paladin into abandoning someone under their protection is neither a good nor a wise act.

Final Attack may not have meant it thus, but the party's impression that Victor was a danger to the babies is not unfounded.


----------



## hong (Apr 17, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> We (the non-evil supporters) never said the cops would succeed in killing the bad guy PC's who off'd their comrade in arms.  We merely said they would try, with all their might.
> 
> And like the Terminator, they will never stop trying.
> 
> Let me give you a real life example.  My hometown has 4500 people.  In the 1920s, we had our one and only murder.  A New York State trooper was killed by party or parties unknown.  You know when the NY State troopers gave up on this case and stopped having a presence in our town?  NEVER.  There's still a tiny barracks -- two troopers -- there ever since they came to investigate.  We have our own town police department, but I don't think the troopers are going anywhere.



 The salutary lesson here is not "don't do evil things". It is "don't piss off the DM".

Which is basically the flipside of making sure not to play the people with blue circles around their feet as annoying.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> And yet the feudal system was developed in response to various crises developing out of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, so it replaced total lack of security with security. Not as good as modern Western values, by modern standards, perhaps, but in some ways you had to take what you could get.




Paladins often get into trouble in many campaigns for picking the lesser evil, instead of finding the good solution.

But my point simply was that if one applies modern values to the "good or evil" question, then just about every feudal country, king, and noble rates as evil. Going off about how evil killing a representative of a king is seems rather odd when at the same time an evil system such as feudalism is considered ok.

If we are applying modern values, then the paladin would be forced to champion democracy, and oppose kings (with the exception of those kings who are just representative monarchs without any power).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 17, 2008)

apropos of nothing in particular, but I'm reminded of the scene in 'last action hero' where the villain has been transported from the film world into the real world and is astonished to find that things work differently here. To his amazement he can shoot someone in the street and police cars aren't screeching up to nab him straight away.

It is a neat subversion of the idea that cops are onto killers straight away in films.

Returning you to your current thread now.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Paladins often get into trouble in many campaigns for picking the lesser evil, instead of finding the good solution.
> 
> But my point simply was that if one applies modern values to the "good or evil" question, then just about every feudal country, king, and noble rates as evil. Going off about how evil killing a representative of a king is seems rather odd when at the same time an evil system such as feudalism is considered ok.
> 
> If we are applying modern values, then the paladin would be forced to champion democracy, and oppose kings (with the exception of those kings who are just representative monarchs without any power).




Like I said before, monarchy _qua_ monarchy isn't evil, and democracy _qua_ democracy isn't good.  You can have a good and just king, who voluntarily limits the scope of his authority and rules fairly and without undue preference, and you can have a soceity in which 80% cheerfully repeatedly vote to harass, imprison, and murder a numerically-inferior underclass.

We haven't been given enough information to be sure, but what has been presented offers space for the theory that the Arbiters (and possibly the king they serve) are somewhere between hopelessly self-interested neutral and full-on evil.  In fact, when I run into a character named Hades, I generally assume that he will not be a merry, joyous fellow, prone to random outbursts of petting puppies and kissing babies as the sheer positive force of Goodness overwhelms him with its majesty.  If Vincent had dropped the mysterious stoic act to explain himself, even to claim paternal love and deflect dark suspicions would leave a whole lot space for "He and the system he embodies are evil.  Roll initiative."


----------



## billd91 (Apr 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The salutary lesson here is not "don't do evil things". It is "don't piss off the DM".




Or at least, don't throw a change-up at the DM by making a paladin character (and other hero characters) and then play by treating any NPCs like you're a violent sociopath.


----------



## hong (Apr 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Or at least, don't throw a change-up at the DM by making a paladin character (and other hero characters) and then play by treating any NPCs like you're a violent sociopath.



 No, the salutary lesson _there_ is "don't play a paladin".

Seriously, trust me on the paladin. Well, that and sunscreen.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which is basically the flipside of making sure not to play the people with blue circles around their feet as annoying.




What are blue circles around their feet?

When I'm DM, folks only come on the game board when there's a fight going down.  And non-PC's are usually represented by different colored d6's, rather than minis with color-coded bases . . . I'm so primitive.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 17, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Like I said before, monarchy _qua_ monarchy isn't evil, and democracy _qua_ democracy isn't good.  You can have a good and just king, who voluntarily limits the scope of his authority and rules fairly and without undue preference, and you can have a soceity in which 80% cheerfully repeatedly vote to harass, imprison, and murder a numerically-inferior underclass.




Thanks for saying this.  I was letting it go as I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you are correct.  Real world examples of the former (good king/unelected traditional ruler) would be the current King of Bhutan or the pre-1959 Dalai Lama, and of the later (evil rulers who are the people's choice) would be pre-1994 South Africa, or if that doesn't count because only a minority of the population could vote, current day Iran (Ahmedinejad is a more-or-less freely elected leader; it's true there's also an unelected Supreme Leader, but the face guy doing all the crazy talk, officially in charge day-to-day, and driving his "peaceful nuclear program" is an elected official who needs to stand for re-election in 2009 and has only a narrow, run-off election majority.  Weird, I know.).


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 17, 2008)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Well, according to the majority of posters on this thread protecting an infant from abduction is an unforgivably malign act.



Correction: According to the "majority" of posters on this thread abducting an infant from it's father _and_ police and then murdering said father and police is a somewhat evil act. Not sure what you're talking about (making up?).



> The PCs Had been warned that Vincent was a potential danger to the infants.



Not in the OP. According to the OP, the mother "wants to keep it a secret from him". Suggesting anything else is simply making things up. Please don't do that.


Oh, and:


			
				Takyris said:
			
		

> Who is the "we" in this "our"?
> 
> It may not be realistic, but I didn't sign on to play a Reality Roleplaying Game.
> 
> And please don't play Socratic Garbage with me. When I can see you loading the question, you're not loading it very well.



This.

Guess what? I have good kings and knights, yet no 'feudalism' in its full technical definition, combined with 21st century social morality, too. It works for me and my particular group (and that's all that matters, of course). Who knows whether it would work for the OP, but it's out there.


----------



## Chimera (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If we are applying modern values, then the paladin would be forced to champion democracy, and oppose kings (with the exception of those kings who are just representative monarchs without any power).




This I think is an unfortunate artifact of modern western civilization.

In a world with wide disparities in power between individuals (I mean active "Blast with Lightning Bolts" power) and potent MONSTERS roaming the countryside, with large numbers of different races with vastly different ideas of right and wrong; the ideal of democratic government is not necessarily the highest good.

"Um, Mr. 20th level Cleric, sir?  We all voted that YOU go out and kill the big horrible nasty."
"Sorry schlub, I vote that I go over there and let the big nasty eat you."
"But we voted.  You're breaking the law!"
"There won't be any law if the nasty eats you.  Ok, how about another vote.  IF I kill the nasty, I get to be King.  And if you don't agree to my terms, I take a hike.  Deal?"
(pause and large amounts of whispering)
"Yes, your majesty."


----------



## billd91 (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If we are applying modern values, then the paladin would be forced to champion democracy, and oppose kings (with the exception of those kings who are just representative monarchs without any power).




On that, we disagree completely. As long as the king respects and defends the human rights of his people, then I fail to see how it would be considered "evil" even by modern Western society. I'd say that modern Western society would see a democratic version of the same general society as "better" but paladins are hardly required to make choices between two good things simply because one is more participatory and, by some assessments, superior. Good is good enough.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 17, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> We haven't been given enough information to be sure, but what has been presented offers space for the theory that the Arbiters (and possibly the king they serve) are somewhere between hopelessly self-interested neutral and full-on evil.  In fact, when I run into a character named Hades, I generally assume that he will not be a merry, joyous fellow, prone to random outbursts of petting puppies and kissing babies as the sheer positive force of Goodness overwhelms him with its majesty.  If Vincent had dropped the mysterious stoic act to explain himself, even to claim paternal love and deflect dark suspicions would leave a whole lot space for "He and the system he embodies are evil.  Roll initiative."




FYI the OP said that Hades is not the guys name just the nickname he thinks of him as.

Trying to aviod real life politics here but the whole idea that anything other than a democracy can be evil an a democracy can't does not ring true to me.

The whole popular vote VS the electoral vote is an example some people believe that it can be misused.

Back before moderen voting practices and machines voting boxes could be stuffed there are a lot of ways to subvert demoracy.

Some democracies only allow certain sections of the population to vote.

By today's standards we look at feudal systems as barbaric. But as bill91 pointed out they were in some ways the best security for the people back then.

I think one reason we have alignment issues is that some people want a modern view point of good and evil in their game and others wnat a more historical view. Neither is wrong way to play. But everybody needs to be on the same page especially if there are paladins in the party.

Some players might want to play a more historical correct viking raider while others would feel uncomfortable and would rather play a more sanitized version.


----------



## Chimera (Apr 17, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Some players might want to play a more historical correct viking raider while others would feel uncomfortable and would rather play a more sanitized version.




Now I think you're being silly.  I don't know anyone who would want to play a bunch of Vikings that go around cleaning places.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 17, 2008)

> Well, according to the majority of posters on this thread protecting an infant from abduction is an unforgivably malign act.






			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> Paladins often get into trouble in many campaigns for picking the lesser evil, instead of finding the good solution.




That's not my point. My point is that it is clearly a huge CHAOTIC action. This paladin has not been LAWFUL, which is equally important to whether or not he's been good or evil. He was not lawful when he brought a sword to a fist fight. Not when he covered up that murder. Not when he refused an order from a duly appointed member of the law. He wasn't lawful when he failed to even try to work within the system to achieve his allegedly good aims. Not when he slaughtered said law enforcer. Not when he attempted to cover up the crime by slicing off the head and burning the body. There's been no time when this paladin has acted as Lawful Anything, even Lawful Stupid.

I've been exceedingly generous on whether this was an evil act or not by suggesting that Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter would be an appropriate choice for the PC now. But the one thing this paladin is NOT is Lawful. And that means a class change or an atonement from celestials or religious superiors.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 17, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I have a question for those who think the arbitor was wrong lets switch the situation around.
> 
> An NPC cleric comes to try and heal a woman dying in childbirth he is to late he cast speak to the dead and finds out that the mother does not want the baby to go to the father who is an adventuring PC.
> 
> ...




The NPC cleric is in the wrong. In civilized areas, lethal force is the last resort, not the first. He didn't go to the cops. He didn't report this to his superiors. He didn't have any information that indicated the baby was in trouble. He didn't gather more background information. He didn't cast Zone of Truth. He didn't cast Augury or Commune or Detect Evil. He didn't strike to subdue. And then he tried to cover up what he did rather than proclaim to the rooftops that he heroically saved this child. 

His actions are chaotic. His actions may be evil or may be good, but he has no idea which it is because he never bothered to get more information. As a cleric, the state of his very soul now depends on utter chance as to whether he unjustifiably killed an evil person or unjustifiably killed a good person. 

But make no mistake: his actions, good or evil, are not justified. And they cannot be considered lawful, which may be an important point, depending on his god's alignment.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 17, 2008)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Whereas I don't get off facilitating my friends acting like violent sociopaths. ...
> 
> I don't necessarily like your judgement here, because you're being negative toward people like me who would be unhappy with their players "being jerks".  The game is a joint effort between all people at the table and if a single player or even a preponderance of the players want something other than the GM is willing to give them, it isn't necessarily wrong on the GM's part to be unhappy with players who attempt to force that unwanted behavior on the game.




QFT.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 17, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> No, the "he did not even want to talk to them" evidence. You simply don't treat people like that.
> 
> Seriously, I can't imagine a politician or arbiter acting that stupid. If it had been a PC, we'd all laugh at how he ignopred the signs of impeding violence, and provoked the party.




Incorrect!

Let's go back to the OP.



> ... He says, "I will take the boy." The PCs try to talk him out of it and question his motives, but he doesn't see the need to explain himself to them. "I will take the boy" He repeats.




So the dialogue scene is:

Arbiter: "I will take the boy."
Paladin: "I know that you're a legal representative of the king and that this is your child and that you are the only surviving parent. And I'm a paladin, by definition sworn to uphold the law and work within the system to promote good under all but evil tyrants. But I distrust your motives for these reasons..."
Arbiter: [rolls eyes] "I will take the boy."
Paladin: [draws sword, kills arbiter, cuts off head, burns body]

So, what's missing: detect evil, augury from the cleric nearby, asking for a diplomacy check, doing gather info checks on this dude before he gets there, knowledge: royalty and nobility checks to figure out what his rep is, reporting the incident to his religious leaders, pressing a case in the legal system, getting any supporting information that the child would even be in danger rather than unhappy and badly parented.

Clearly, the obvious solution to this difficult moral problem for the paladin is to go right to the most chaotic action that does not involve the use of hummus as an offensive weapon.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> What are blue circles around their feet?




They're the things that tell you who not to play as annoying.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 18, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> To his amazement he can shoot someone in the street and police cars aren't screeching up to nab him straight away.




"I have just shot someone; I did it on purpose!"
"... I said, I have just killed a man and I wish to confess!"
("Shut up!")

  Lousy movie with some moments of brilliance.

"To be, or not to be?  ... not to be."

-Hyp.


----------



## Kalis (Apr 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Arbiter: "I will take the boy."
> Paladin: "I know that you're a legal representative of the king and that this is your child and that you are the only surviving parent. And I'm a paladin, by definition sworn to uphold the law and work within the system to promote good under all but evil tyrants. But I distrust your motives for these reasons..."
> Arbiter: [rolls eyes] "I will take the boy."
> Paladin: [draws sword, kills arbiter, cuts off head, burns body]




It is more likely that the players saw themselves as stopping Darth Vader from taking baby Luke. They burned the body so they wouldn't be attacked by some Sith LordArbiter vampire or something. They were told by the mother not to let the father know about them, then the cold, distant, supposedly powerful and intimidating(to non-PC's anyway) father shows up and demands the son with no explanation or attempt to explain why the mother might be loopy. The result of such an attempt on D&D adventurers isn't that surprising.

It isn't hard to possibly see where any hero could end up making a mistake in this situation.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Trying to aviod real life politics here but the whole idea that anything other than a democracy can be evil an a democracy can't does not ring true to me.




That's not what I said - I claim that by our modern values, a non-democratic system is evil. That doesn't mean any democratic system is good. But it disqualifies any non-democratic system.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> On that, we disagree completely. As long as the king respects and defends the human rights of his people, then I fail to see how it would be considered "evil" even by modern Western society.




If we can't vote as equals then our human rights are not upheld.


----------



## Slife (Apr 18, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> That's not what I said - I claim that by our modern values, a non-democratic system is evil. That doesn't mean any democratic system is good. But it disqualifies any non-democratic system.



So... Canada is evil?  So is the United Kingdom?

Constitutional monarchies can work.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

Chimera said:
			
		

> This I think is an unfortunate artifact of modern western civilization.
> 
> In a world with wide disparities in power between individuals (I mean active "Blast with Lightning Bolts" power) and potent MONSTERS roaming the countryside, with large numbers of different races with vastly different ideas of right and wrong; the ideal of democratic government is not necessarily the highest good.
> 
> ...




I agree with that - killing someone to protect or restore your honor is often a good thing in my game because I do not apply modern values to my game's belief system.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> That's not my point. My point is that it is clearly a huge CHAOTIC action. This paladin has not been LAWFUL, which is equally important to whether or not he's been good or evil. He was not lawful when he brought a sword to a fist fight. Not when he covered up that murder. Not when he refused an order from a duly appointed member of the law. He wasn't lawful when he failed to even try to work within the system to achieve his allegedly good aims. Not when he slaughtered said law enforcer. Not when he attempted to cover up the crime by slicing off the head and burning the body. There's been no time when this paladin has acted as Lawful Anything, even Lawful Stupid.
> 
> I've been exceedingly generous on whether this was an evil act or not by suggesting that Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter would be an appropriate choice for the PC now. But the one thing this paladin is NOT is Lawful. And that means a class change or an atonement from celestials or religious superiors.




Lawful, in my opinion, is not following the law of the land, no matter who rules the land and what laws they are, but following clear principles and codes. Those codes can be "follow the law of the land as long as it's not evil, respect authoritiy as long as it's not evil", but they canalso be "Follow the law of the church, no matter where you are, respect authority but the church's authority is supreme" or even "Follow the code. Follow your God. Anything else comes after that."

Given how flimsy law can be, how law can change with ruler changes, I simply don't get why people expect a paladin - a champion of a god and/or its chruch - to follow laws of kings instead of divine law.


----------



## Hammerhead (Apr 18, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> So... Canada is evil?  So is the United Kingdom?
> 
> Constitutional monarchies can work.




Neither Canada nor the UK are constitutional monarchies; the queen of England has no real power. 

I'm with the PCs. If a dying woman just asked me to stop the bad guy from getting the child, my good-aligned PCs would try to stop him. What's the alternative, getting into a custody battle?

As far as burning the body, well, it's probably pretty smart to hide the evidence if you've just killed the king's right hand man. Stops Raise Dead, Speak With Dead, etc.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

Slife said:
			
		

> So... Canada is evil?  So is the United Kingdom?
> 
> Constitutional monarchies can work.




I am talking about real monarchies, as in "King says what goes" style. Any system where the monarch has executive power by virtue of his or her birth (like Liechtenstein) is evil. Queen Elizabeth II however is not the government or executive of the UK.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Incorrect!
> 
> Let's go back to the OP.
> 
> ...




If I read "The arbiter doesn't feel the need to explain", I assume that the arbiter was not receptive to verbal questions. That, for me, rules diplomacy as a tool right out. Zone of truth and similar stuff also fails since there is no explanation to check.

And I vehemently disagree with a paladin being sworn to work within a system under all but evil tyrants - I say that his divine mandate takes precedence.

I assume the dialogue went more like 

Paladin: Sir, I once again ask you to explain yourself. I cannot simply hand over a child to you when its dieing mother asked me not to.
Arbiter: I will take the child.
Paladin Player: Can I roll diplomacy?
DM: He doesn't react.
Paladin: Sir, explain yourself, or leave, but you will not get the child like this.
Arbiter: I will take the child.
Paladin: I will not allow this.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 18, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If I read "The arbiter doesn't feel the need to explain", I assume that the arbiter was not receptive to verbal questions. That, for me, rules diplomacy as a tool right out. Zone of truth and similar stuff also fails since there is no explanation to check.
> 
> And I vehemently disagree with a paladin being sworn to work within a system under all but evil tyrants - I say that his divine mandate takes precedence.




I agree that the diplomacy roll would be a DM judgment call. As a DM, if the player made a big argument/speech, I'd let him roll a diplomacy check to see if he nudges the arbiter from the "Hostile" setting. If there's a success, then, yeah, he starts talking to you.

But even if the DM doesn't rule that way, there's no way that I'd say that the player response would be described as inevitable, rather than horrifically played. 

Why on earth didn't the paladin use his detect evil ability? (I assume he didn't use it on the mother, so we also have no idea if the MOTHER was evil, which was also a possibility. And kudos to her if she was. Good show!)

Why didn't the paladin use sense motive? That's a class skill for him, just as much as diplomacy.

Why didn't the paladin use knowledge: nobility and royalty to get a scrap of information about this guy? It's his one knowledge skill.

He also didn't use the campaign-specific options: talk to a religious superior, insist on taking this situation to court, have the sorcerer gather info on the Arbiter before he gets there, and he didn't press the case in the legal system.

He didn't ask the cleric at the birth of the children to cast Augury, Zone of Truth, or get divine guidance through other spells. 

In short, he has no information that the child would even be in danger rather than unhappy and badly parented. And, however, much you disapprove, you don't kill a man for that. That's why the paladin has diplomacy and sense motive on his list. So, the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clause can't come into play.

And, for our purposes, we don't have to argue about the paladin's divine mandate and how it fits into secular society structures. 'Cause my basic point was that paladins are presumed to have some respect for the law, which this incident and his past history indicate a profound disrespect for divine and secular laws. (There's no way that bringing a sword to a fist fight that you and your buddies started respects a divine mandate.)

And I can't wait to hear how he explains to the little girl and little boy that he murdered their father, cut off his head, and burned his body. One would imagine that such a tale would be... emotionally scarring, to say the least. Especially since one of their first questions is going to be "Why did mommy not like daddy?" And his response is going to be, "You know what? I never bothered to find out."

Verdict: Not Lawful. Get a new paladin alternate class or get an atonement.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 18, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If we can't vote as equals then our human rights are not upheld.




Have you been to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223473


----------



## Fenes (Apr 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Have you been to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223473




There's a difference between having the right to elect one's government, and having a say in what is a private virtual area one chooses to join as a guest.

On topic: One does not know if the paladin did not use sense motive, or simialr things. I'd ask though why the arbiter did not use sense motive, bluff, or anything else to avoid getting killed. And if he lacks those skills, how on earth did he do his job?


----------



## Kalis (Apr 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Why on earth didn't the paladin use his detect evil ability? (I assume he didn't use it on the mother, so we also have no idea if the MOTHER was evil, which was also a possibility. And kudos to her if she was. Good show!)



Not showing up on the paladin's evildar doesn't give you immunity from a whupping. Good vs Good/Neutral can still happen, though it is tragic when circumstances can force your hand. A simple mind blank, which any operative of a king should have on at all times, also foils the ability.



> Why didn't the paladin use sense motive? That's a class skill for him, just as much as diplomacy.
> 
> Why didn't the paladin use knowledge: nobility and royalty to get a scrap of information about this guy? It's his one knowledge skill.



Paladins get 2 skill points per level(plus int mod obviously) and are rather starved for stat points anyway. Just because you have the skill on your class list, doesn't mean you are trained in it, or else you wouldn't need to make a choice for skill points.

Also, sense motive what? Speak with the dead requires the truth(not that they really asked her for any info) and Vincent(a rather evilish name imo) only said "Give me the boy." Sense motive reveals: He wants the kid. By Odin's Beard, what a shock.



> He also didn't use the campaign-specific options: talk to a religious superior, insist on taking this situation to court, have the sorcerer gather info on the Arbiter before he gets there, and he didn't press the case in the legal system.



What options? The arbiter is above the law, and untouchable by courts.



> He didn't ask the cleric at the birth of the children to cast Augury, Zone of Truth, or get divine guidance through other spells.
> 
> In short, he has no information that the child would even be in danger rather than unhappy and badly parented. And, however, much you disapprove, you don't kill a man for that. That's why the paladin has diplomacy and sense motive on his list. So, the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clause can't come into play.



They tried a little diplomacy and to get information from the guy. He basically told them to "Shut it", cause he's an untouchable Arbiter and they are nobodies(from a legal perspective) to him. Again, they see him as Darth Vader coming for baby Luke and being a jerk about it.



> And, for our purposes, we don't have to argue about the paladin's divine mandate and how it fits into secular society structures. 'Cause my basic point was that paladins are presumed to have some respect for the law, which this incident and his past history indicate a profound disrespect for divine and secular laws.



They are presumed to have respect for their code of honor, which may or may not respect the secular laws of any given nation or state.



> And I can't wait to hear how he explains to the little girl and little boy that he murdered their father, cut off his head, and burned his body. One would imagine that such a tale would be... emotionally scarring, to say the least. Especially since one of their first questions is going to be "Why did mommy not like daddy?" And his response is going to be, "You know what? I never bothered to find out."



Who says the sorceror/hexblade or cleric need to even mention another father. They could just claim that the children is one of their's(which if they raise the kid, they might feel is true) and mommy died in childbirth(which is the truth). They are just infants after all. They might not remember it. And if they do, the paladin can simply say that daddy wouldn't explain and wouldn't consider the fact that they felt bound to follow the wishes of the mother.



> Verdict: Not Lawful. Get a new paladin alternate class or get an atonement.



Paladins don't require an atonement for a non lawful act, unless it moves them out of LG. Also, I disagree about the act. I simply view it as neutral without more info. The way the mother phrased her wishes makes it seem like it is a case of defending the innocent. The only thing not good about the act is that the DM knows that Vincent isn't evil, just an arrogant jerk.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 18, 2008)

Kalis said:
			
		

> Paladins don't require an atonement for a non lawful act, unless it moves them out of LG. Also, I disagree about the act. I simply view it as neutral without more info. The way the mother phrased her wishes makes it seem like it is a case of defending the innocent. The only thing not good about the act is that the DM knows that Vincent isn't evil, just an arrogant jerk.




Actually, they do. They need to atone for any evil act or act that grossly violates the code of conduct... which requires that they respect legitimate authority. So, whatever game these players want, the paladin player has taken his character into territory that endangers his powers. 
You might argue that he did so to protect the innocent, but upholding one part of the code while violating the other shouldn't make the character immune to the need for some form of atonement. Particularly when the evidence that the innocent was actually threatened is sketchy.

Ultimately, I think the player made the wrong choice of character type to play for the style of play he wants. If he persists in wanting to play a paladin, he should take the restrictions with the powers as fairly adjudicated by the DM. If he doesn't want the restrictions, he should reboot the character.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 18, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Actually, they do. They need to atone for any evil act or act that grossly violates the code of conduct... which requires that they respect legitimate authority. So, whatever game these players want, the paladin player has taken his character into territory that endangers his powers.
> You might argue that he did so to protect the innocent, but upholding one part of the code while violating the other shouldn't make the character immune to the need for some form of atonement. Particularly when the evidence that the innocent was actually threatened is sketchy.
> 
> Ultimately, I think the player made the wrong choice of character type to play for the style of play he wants. If he persists in wanting to play a paladin, he should take the restrictions with the powers as fairly adjudicated by the DM. If he doesn't want the restrictions, he should reboot the character.



Define 'legitimate authority'.  The principle of authority and law is to serve the public trust. Doing this requires equality and a sense of fairness and justice.  The Arbiter's failure to recuse himself from this situation on account of conflict of interest (or even explain his actions) means that he was by definition not acting as legitimate authority.  In the Paladin-view of the world, great authority carries with it inherently great responsibility; the Arbiter's attempt to use his granted authority for personal business was a violation of that responsibility, and _de facto_ abdication of authority on his part.  Evil or not, the paladin's obligation to give him the time of day ended there.

Also, if the head-of-state status of the king is a problem, all the paladin needs to do is declare all the lands and waters of the Prime to be under his dominions as benevolent ruler and protector.  Now he's the lawful authority.

Now, he could well have been simply inarticulate, and had no malign intentions towards the child.  Indeed, caution should have been exercised on the part of the party, since this is family stuff and people can be strange about family stuff.  However, there was certainly a reasonable doubt that handing over the child to the Arbiter would have resulted in evil.

So, IMC, no first-degree code violation.  Whether or not it was an actual code violation depends on whether or not the Arbiter actually was malign.

Also, in 3.XE, paladins do not serve gods or churches.  They serve Goodness, full-stop.  If the will of the church or even the gods goes against Goodness, then the churches and the gods just lost themselves some followers.  In D&D, Good is an actual, tangible, quasi-sentient force in the universe, and is not subject to redefinition by anyone (other than the GM, who is not a force in the universe).


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 18, 2008)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Neither Canada nor the UK are constitutional monarchies; the queen of England has no real power.




They absolutely are constitutional monarchies, as are Belgium, Norway, Australia, etc.

And as I pointed out, even a monarch not limited by a parliament or a constitution can be good.  Bhutan is an excellent example of this, though in the last few weeks he recently decided that his people should have democracy and required them to form two parties to have an election.



			
				Hammerhead said:
			
		

> What's the alternative, getting into a custody battle?




Umm, yes?  I have no idea why the DM thought this situation belonged in a D&D adventure, but yes, taking a legal dispute on child custody to the compete legal authorities would be the "Lawful" thing to do.



			
				Hammerhead said:
			
		

> As far as burning the body, well, it's probably pretty smart to hide the evidence if you've just killed the king's right hand man. Stops Raise Dead, Speak With Dead, etc.




Stops Raise Dead is what makes it extra evil, IMHO.  Not just dead, but super dead.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I am talking about real monarchies, as in "King says what goes" style. Any system where the monarch has executive power by virtue of his or her birth (like Liechtenstein) is evil. Queen Elizabeth II however is not the government or executive of the UK.




No, but she is the Head of State.  And in time of constitutional crisis, she would be in charge.  In the 1960s, the British had a plan for military/royal takeover from the elected leaders, much like the recent coup in Thailand, if the 1968 disturbances led to a communist takeover.

I must admit, I've never seen anyone say the ruler of Liechtenstein is evil.  I'll have to read about Liechtenstein!  If you said the Sultan of Brunei, I would see your point, but it's the guy, not the constitutional situation, in that case.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 19, 2008)

Double post.  Sorry.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I am talking about real monarchies, as in "King says what goes" style. Any system where the monarch has executive power by virtue of his or her birth (like Liechtenstein) is evil. Queen Elizabeth II however is not the government or executive of the UK.




No, but she is the Head of State.  And in time of constitutional crisis, she would be in charge.  In the 1960s, the British had a plan for military/royal takeover from the elected leaders, much like the recent coup in Thailand, if the 1968 disturbances led to a communist takeover.

I must admit, I've never seen anyone say the ruler of Liechtenstein is evil.  I'll have to read about Liechtenstein!  If you said the Sultan of Brunei, I would see your point, but it's the guy, not the constitutional situation, in that case.

Also, there's a difference between absolute monarchies (from the Reformation onwards) and traditional medieval monarchies.  Absolutism ("what I say goes because God says so") is a product of early modern times.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 19, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Define 'legitimate authority'.  The principle of authority and law is to serve the public trust. Doing this requires equality and a sense of fairness and justice.  The Arbiter's failure to recuse himself from this situation on account of conflict of interest (or even explain his actions) means that he was by definition not acting as legitimate authority.  In the Paladin-view of the world, great authority carries with it inherently great responsibility; the Arbiter's attempt to use his granted authority for personal business was a violation of that responsibility, and _de facto_ abdication of authority on his part.  Evil or not, the paladin's obligation to give him the time of day ended there.




So if a cop wants custody of his kid, you shouldn't give it to him, because that's an abuse of his authority?

Oh, and the other comment from another poster than the cop is above the law, who said?



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Also, in 3.XE, paladins do not serve gods or churches.  They serve Goodness, full-stop.




Say what?  I thought that was an option (a lame one, IMHO), not required or default.  And I thought that was for clerics.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> In D&D, Good is an actual, tangible, quasi-sentient force in the universe




The default world in 3.* is Greyhawk, not Star Wars.  There's is no Force in Greyhawk.


----------



## Andor (Apr 19, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> And as I pointed out, even a monarch not limited by a parliament or a constitution can be good.  Bhutan is an excellent example of this, though in the last few weeks he recently decided that his people should have democracy and required them to form two parties to have an election.




Ahh yes. I saw an article about that. All the people interviewed said "We have a good and wise King, why would I want democracy? Still, he's the King, so we have no choice."


----------



## NilesB (Apr 19, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> So if a cop wants custody of his kid, you shouldn't give it to him, because that's an abuse of his authority?



Let's say that you are fostering an infant for child protective services, when you are awoken in the night by a banging on your door. Answering it you find the child's father a police officer. Fingering his gun in it's holster the man demands his son, refusing all inquires about the boys safety and his authorization.

That's what the situation looked like to the PC's


----------



## billd91 (Apr 19, 2008)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Let's say that you are fostering an infant for child protective services, when you are awoken in the night by a banging on your door. Answering it you find the child's father a police officer. Fingering his gun in it's holster the man demands his son, refusing all inquires about the boys safety and his authorization.
> 
> That's what the situation looked like to the PC's




That's a lot of projecting your assumptions on the situation. We know of no such thing. From the original post, it looks just as likely that the PCs were just being uppity punks who won't take any guff, no matter what the social situation is.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 19, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Define 'legitimate authority'.  The principle of authority and law is to serve the public trust. Doing this requires equality and a sense of fairness and justice.  The Arbiter's failure to recuse himself from this situation on account of conflict of interest (or even explain his actions) means that he was by definition not acting as legitimate authority.  In the Paladin-view of the world, great authority carries with it inherently great responsibility; the Arbiter's attempt to use his granted authority for personal business was a violation of that responsibility, and _de facto_ abdication of authority on his part.  Evil or not, the paladin's obligation to give him the time of day ended there.




Depends on the campaign world, doesn't it? If the king rules by divine right, equality doesn't enter into it. In fact, equality becomes a very dubious justification whenever you have hierarchical societies... like aristocracies and monarchies. There's no out-of-campaign argument you can make to say the Arbiter overstepped or stepped outside of his authority. 
But if, for example, protection of family units and inheritance comes under the authority of the state (as it pretty much always does), then he most certainly did not and could not step outside his authority by demanding the custody of his heir.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 19, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> I must admit, I've never seen anyone say the ruler of Liechtenstein is evil.  I'll have to read about Liechtenstein!  If you said the Sultan of Brunei, I would see your point, but it's the guy, not the constitutional situation, in that case.




And you haven't yet. I said the _system _was evil.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 19, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Depends on the campaign world, doesn't it? If the king rules by divine right, equality doesn't enter into it. In fact, equality becomes a very dubious justification whenever you have hierarchical societies... like aristocracies and monarchies. There's no out-of-campaign argument you can make to say the Arbiter overstepped or stepped outside of his authority.
> But if, for example, protection of family units and inheritance comes under the authority of the state (as it pretty much always does), then he most certainly did not and could not step outside his authority by demanding the custody of his heir.




But if we leave modern values, then killing a rude man could be completely good and in line with any divine mandate for a paladin in the campaign world.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> But if we leave modern values, then killing a rude man could be completely good and in line with any divine mandate for a paladin in the campaign world.




And how likely do you think it is that rudeness warrants death in the paladin's mandate, particularly when said rude individual is the representative of the king? What paladin code of conduct would make sense to include respect for the legit authorities save when they offend the paladin's tender sensibilities? 

Suffice to say, the DM's dismay in the OP rather suggests that your supposition is not the case.


----------



## NilesB (Apr 19, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> That's a lot of projecting your assumptions on the situation.



It is a lot of projecting, by an an objective standard. For this thread though, it's low-average.


----------



## Victim (Apr 19, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Umm, yes?  I have no idea why the DM thought this situation belonged in a D&D adventure, but yes, taking a legal dispute on child custody to the compete legal authorities would be the "Lawful" thing to do.




Given the situation, I'd assume that any sort of legal challenge would be a dead end.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> And you haven't yet. I said the _system _was evil.




Got ya.  

Liechtenstein's actual form of government, having read up on it now, reminds me of England after the English Civil War, or America if the President were hereditary -- that is, it has a strong executive, but he's limited somewhat by a legislative branch, an independent judiciary, and a constitution.  Really neither fish nor fowl between absolute monarch and parliamentary democracy.

I tend to be a moral absolutist, but I wouldn't call Liechtenstein evil.  That is, I think democracy is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.  But I don't think other forms of government are necessarily evil. 

For example, my wife is Singaporean.  I have almost complete respect for their form of government and for what Lee Kuan Yew achieved, going from Third World to First in a generation with no great social upheavals or mass inhumanity.  But some people say Singapore's not a real democracy, since they same party keeps winning almost all the seats and since their government has imposed some laws that feel draconian to outsiders (namely, the ban on chewing gum, and the one foreign kid who was caned for graffiti).  On balance, however, I think it's a well-meaning and Lawful Good -- with a capital LG! -- government that has vastly benefited its population.

And normally you'd think a imperialist who started a colony was an "evil" guy, from a 21st century perspective, but Sir Stamford Raffles, who founded Singapore, was a singularly well-meaning and non-racist colonialist, still highly respected there as a founding father.  So go figure.

Whereas South Africa had a democratically elected Lawful Evil government until it had a change of heart and ended apartheid in 1994.

So, I see your point, but I respectfully don't think it's ALWAYS true that democracy = good, and undemocratic = evil.

But while I truly love talking about all these things, I should probably shut up since it seems a very minor issue in the perpetual D&Der argument about the nature of good!


----------



## Fenes (Apr 19, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> And how likely do you think it is that rudeness warrants death in the paladin's mandate, particularly when said rude individual is the representative of the king? What paladin code of conduct would make sense to include respect for the legit authorities save when they offend the paladin's tender sensibilities?
> 
> Suffice to say, the DM's dismay in the OP rather suggests that your supposition is not the case.




Some call it "tender sensibilities", some call it honor. And keeping your honor by killing is considered the right thing to do in far too many real world socieites, so I would dare to assume it's not too far out for a paladin either.

Which is the crux of this discussion. For me, being rude is enough to warrant getting killed in most of my medieval and sword&sorcery settings. Usually in a duel, but if that's refused, people may just attack the "honorless cur".


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 19, 2008)

Kalis said:
			
		

> Not showing up on the paladin's evildar doesn't give you immunity from a whupping. Good vs Good/Neutral can still happen, though it is tragic when circumstances can force your hand. A simple mind blank, which any operative of a king should have on at all times, also foils the ability.
> 
> Paladins get 2 skill points per level(plus int mod obviously) and are rather starved for stat points anyway. Just because you have the skill on your class list, doesn't mean you are trained in it, or else you wouldn't need to make a choice for skill points.




First, we don't have to argue whether being good/neutral gives you immunity from a paladin whuppin', 'cause the paladin never used that ability. That's my point: he doesn't know. Second, "a simple mind blank"?? Every operative of the king is a 15th level caster? Even if the OP took the EL system to an absurdity, sense motive's also a skill he can use untrained.




			
				Kalis said:
			
		

> Also, sense motive what? Speak with the dead requires the truth(not that they really asked her for any info) and Vincent(a rather evilish name imo) only said "Give me the boy." Sense motive reveals: He wants the kid. By Odin's Beard, what a shock.




First, I agree that they should have asked follow-up questions. IF they actually are high level, having another casting of that spell should have been a priority. And Sense Motive's more useful than you give it credit for being:

Let's check the SRD:



> DC 20: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.




So, they could have gotten a hunch based off body language and facial expression whether he was trustworthy or not. Again, it's that the PALADIN didn't bother with this approach when dealing with an agent of the king, WHOM HE SERVES (see his service in the army as a soldier in the OP.)




			
				Kalis said:
			
		

> What options? The arbiter is above the law, and untouchable by courts.




They are answerable to the king. If they had any, you know, evidence, they could go to the king and appeal to his court. That would be a lawful act.



			
				Kalis said:
			
		

> They are presumed to have respect for their code of honor, which may or may not respect the secular laws of any given nation or state.




They worked for the state for a very long time, according to the OP, as, "They have moved their way up in the ranks of the local army starting as pleb novices all the way to kingdom heroes."



			
				Kalis said:
			
		

> Who says the sorceror/hexblade or cleric need to even mention another father. They could just claim that the children is one of their's(which if they raise the kid, they might feel is true) and mommy died in childbirth(which is the truth). They are just infants after all. They might not remember it. And if they do, the paladin can simply say that daddy wouldn't explain and wouldn't consider the fact that they felt bound to follow the wishes of the mother.




Well, yes, asking the hexblade would be a stupid thing for the child to do. But the paladin's going to still have an awfully difficult time explaining follow-up questions like 

"Why did my mommy hate my daddy?" 
"Should I hate my daddy?" 
"Was daddy evil?"
"Where's daddy now?" 
"I want to meet my biological father."  
"Why can't I visit my daddy's grave?" 
"Why did you kill my daddy?" 

And each time he lies in answer to one of these questions, he gets further and further away from his code.



			
				Kalis said:
			
		

> Paladins don't require an atonement for a non lawful act, unless it moves them out of LG. Also, I disagree about the act. I simply view it as neutral without more info. The way the mother phrased her wishes makes it seem like it is a case of defending the innocent. The only thing not good about the act is that the DM knows that Vincent isn't evil, just an arrogant jerk.




Sorry, but you're incorrect. Atonement works for violating any part of your alignment. And while we disagree with it being a neutral act, this spell would fit for that alignment violation of both law and good too. From the srd:



> Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can also be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, whether those acts are evil, good, chaotic, or lawful.




Like I said, there's always the Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter options for this chaotic little paladin.


----------



## Kalis (Apr 19, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Well, yes, asking the hexblade would be a stupid thing for the child to do. But the paladin's going to still have an awfully difficult time explaining follow-up questions like
> 
> "Why did my mommy hate my daddy?"
> "Should I hate my daddy?"
> ...



Why would any of those questions be asked? Unless it is really obvious that the children can't be one of theirs(children are elven, the team are half orcs), the children have no reason to assume they are anything but the children of their apparent father. Especially with a possible paladin father figure. They were babies, practically fresh out of the womb, when the events took place. They won't remember mommy hating daddy or see a need for any of those questions.

This is especially true if the group leaves the kingdom and starts over. Nobody in the new village will doubt that a paladin traveling with two babies is the actual father, and the lack of mother would just cause them to assume the mother died in childbirth.

Villager: "The kids don't look much like you, Sir Gawain."
Paladin: "They take after their mother more than me."

A totally true response which gives facts without violating the code of honor, since they take nothing from the paladin.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 19, 2008)

I read the first couple of pages, and now the last page.  To me, the party was clearly acting in a chaotic fashion and that would call for some serious penalties to the paladin - if it is the paladin's first time acting unlawful, perhaps a stern warning and some atonement.  If the DM has been letting the players act in this chaotic fashion, I don't think he would be justified in going further.  But, the players are part of the king's army and the inquisitor is a high level official in the king's army answerable only to the king. If these players were playing a modern-age game with similar characters and had to go through boot camp, are they going to slay the drill sergeant because he yelled at them? Boo-hoo, they didn't like the inquisitor's attitude. I don't like the attitudes of some people I work with - does that give me the right to draw steel on them?

I would also say that slaying a person answerable only to the king and without him doing anything outwardly evil (i.e., they caught him standing over the dead mother with a knife dripping blood...) - the PCs also committed an evil act. Assuming the players know that the inquisitor is a high ranking official, they should know that he is answerable only to the king.  Taking a life because you don't like somebody's attitude isn't really something in any paladin code that I've read, unless it's the Chaotic Evil Paladin of Slaughter.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 23, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Got ya.
> 
> Liechtenstein's actual form of government, having read up on it now, reminds me of England after the English Civil War, or America if the President were hereditary -- that is, it has a strong executive, but he's limited somewhat by a legislative branch, an independent judiciary, and a constitution.  Really neither fish nor fowl between absolute monarch and parliamentary democracy.
> 
> ...




I enjoyed this post.



> But while I truly love talking about all these things, I should probably shut up since it seems a very minor issue in the perpetual D&Der argument about the nature of good!




Which is, itself, a minor issue, as it boils down to a "red team vs. blue team" type of discussion.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 23, 2008)

NilesB said:
			
		

> It is a lot of projecting, by an an objective standard. For this thread though, it's low-average.




But then, that's what this thread is all about.  The DM has expectations of the players, the players see the situation a certain way, the NPCs think the situation is different, the board posters almost all think their interpretation contains the essential nature of the real situation . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 23, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If we can't vote as equals then our human rights are not upheld.



Democracy is a relatively new social concept.  (a good one, mind you, I like it a lot) So, did evil rule the world before democracy took root and saved us all?  There can be good without democracy, and there can be evil within democracy.  I'd explain my point further, but there's no way I could stay within the "no politics" rule on the boards here.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 23, 2008)

What I am saying is that if we use modern values to judge what's good and what's evil in a campaign, then we should go through with it, and apply it to everything, not just to killing for honor.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 23, 2008)

Kalis said:
			
		

> ... and the lack of mother would just cause them to assume the mother died in childbirth....




No child that I know would let something that important stay an assumption. They can be pretty persistent and intuitive.

And once they ask, the paladin can look into their innocent and completely trusting eyes and ... lie, do a white lie, or tell the horrific truth about his actions. 

And if he doesn't chose the latter course, it's only a matter of time before someone (an enemy, a relative of the arbiter, a witness, a court official) "accidentally" lets slip about what their adopted father actually did. It may take years but the truth will out... especially if the children, once they're old enough, use divination magic.

And then the DM has an origin story for two villains. "A Sins of the Past" story would be a great campaign-ender, frankly.


----------



## Kalis (Apr 23, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> No child that I know would let something that important stay an assumption. They can be pretty persistent and intuitive.




I was talking about the hypothetical villagers of a hypothetical village that the pcs move to.



> And once they ask, the paladin can look into their innocent and completely trusting eyes and ... lie, do a white lie, or tell the horrific truth about his actions.



What lie? The mother did die in childbirth.



> And if he doesn't chose the latter course, it's only a matter of time before someone (an enemy, a relative of the arbiter, a witness, a court official) "accidentally" lets slip about what their adopted father actually did.



There is only really two witnesses, a villager and another arbiter(who is amused by the whole situation, which paints arbiters in a bad light). The other arbiter wants to recruit them as arbiters, so he should be willing to kill the witness himself(because that is how arbiters roll, being the pillars of law and good they are) to protect what he perceives as potential allies.



> It may take years but the truth will out... especially if the children, once they're old enough, use divination magic.



Again, what would cause the children to suspect? The mother did die in childbirth, and a paladin should love two children he swore to protect enough that they would never doubt he is their father. He was late in arriving at the mother's side, so he and his cleric friend couldn't cast magic to help her. After speaking with her through magic, the paladin was told to take care of the children, so he does his best to honor the mother's wishes. A faithful account of what happened, without actually telling the children what went on(a Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father moment)



> And then the DM has an origin story for two villains. "A Sins of the Past" story would be a great campaign-ender, frankly.



I don't see two children being raised by a paladin as turning into villains. Your just stretching for anything.


----------



## Andor (Apr 23, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Some call it "tender sensibilities", some call it honor. And keeping your honor by killing is considered the right thing to do in far too many real world socieites, so I would dare to assume it's not too far out for a paladin either.
> 
> Which is the crux of this discussion. For me, being rude is enough to warrant getting killed in most of my medieval and sword&sorcery settings. Usually in a duel, but if that's refused, people may just attack the "honorless cur".




A fighter might cut someone down for an insult, sure. A Paladin? Not so much, although I could see a (non-lethal damage only) beating being issued to an uppity peasant.

And that's the important point. Your honor demands you answer insults from your equals and inferiors. If the king says you look like a bucket of **** you smile and take it. These guys may have been kingdom level heros but slaying the king's personal agent is usually considered high treason. Possibly he needed the kings permission to duel at all. And it wasn't an honor duel in any event, the party as a whole cut him down, yes? That's murder however you put it.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 23, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> A fighter might cut someone down for an insult, sure. A Paladin? Not so much, although I could see a (non-lethal damage only) beating being issued to an uppity peasant.
> 
> And that's the important point. Your honor demands you answer insults from your equals and inferiors. If the king says you look like a bucket of **** you smile and take it. These guys may have been kingdom level heros but slaying the king's personal agent is usually considered high treason. Possibly he needed the kings permission to duel at all. And it wasn't an honor duel in any event, the party as a whole cut him down, yes? That's murder however you put it.




Noble gets insulted, duel is either refused or not possible because the insulting man is of too low station, noble sends his entourage to kill insulting man and joins in.

Works.

Murder? According to modern values, of course. According to campaign values? Depends.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> The DM has expectations of the players, the players see the situation a certain way, the NPCs think the situation is different, the board posters almost all think their interpretation contains the essential nature of the real situation . . .



Some of us posters didn't give a flying frak about the essential moral nature of the situation  (thought it is interesting to play the rationalization game to see how many different stories a DM could spin from the incident).

_Some_ of us suggested running with player's choices and trying to make a fun campaign out of them, unless, of course, the result was simply too unpalatable to the DM, in which case the they should talk things over openly and out-of-game with the players, preferably while pub-crawling.

Some of us also kinda-sorta asked the implicit questions: "How much of a DM's enjoyment is rooted in being in control of the campaigns play style/tone?" and "To what extent, as DM, are you willing to sacrifice your own play style/tonal preferences in order to entertain players with differing preferences?", or more simply "How much of a DM's enjoyment comes simply from entertaining their players?".


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 23, 2008)

You ask what would cause the children to suspect when I suggested that they couldn't possibly cover up their crime. Let's turn to the OP:



			
				Final Attack said:
			
		

> The town is afraid of them and nobody says anything as they kill the Arbitor but they know the seriousness of the situation and remain quiet.  Except one.  He yells, "The king will hear about this" and stalks off heading to Thoa (where the king is). ...
> 
> Another Arbitor, Hades, arrives at the body burning.




So, the entire town knows. 

When this number of people know, a conspiracy of silence is unlikely to hold long term. That means that if this situation doesn't spiral out of control early on, the kids are going to find out, either from an enemy of the PC, a concerned citizen, the cleric, or simply through a bardic knowledge or Knowledge: local or divination spell. 

And, as for your Darth Vader analogy... well, Luke did end up finding out the real story, didn't he? (Not that that's particularly relevant here.)


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 23, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I enjoyed this post.




Thanks.  Gamers on the internet are an oddly interesting group to discuss many subjects with.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 23, 2008)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Democracy is a relatively new social concept.  (a good one, mind you, I like it a lot) So, did evil rule the world before democracy took root and saved us all?  There can be good without democracy, and there can be evil within democracy.  I'd explain my point further, but there's no way I could stay within the "no politics" rule on the boards here.




Democracy is "new" within the history of our species, but only in the sense that steel is new.  It's been around a long time, in different variations.  The first democratic states (with slavery, and with no female subjects) were ancient Greek city states such as Athens, circa 2700 years ago.  These were direct democracies (the people vote), not republican democracies (the people elect representatives who vote).

Democratic traditions sprang up independently in ancient Iceland (~1000 years ago).

However, modern representative democracies all trace back to three related roots -- the English Civil War in the 1640s, the American Revolution starting in 1776, and the French Revolution starting in 1789, each of which sought inspiration in the democracy of the classical world.

Most modern democracies copy some or all of their features from these three countries, mixing and matching in interesting ways.  For example, federal countries like Canada and Germany often US copy ideas like the Senate representing states from the US constitution, while imperially-inclined countries like post-Communist Russia often copy the French/US model of a strong, directly elected king-like President, but with the French addition of a weak Prime Minister elected from the lower house to deal with the more grubby affairs of day-to-day management.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Murder? According to modern values, of course. According to campaign values? Depends.




Murder doesn't depend solely on values. It depends on the law. While that's campaign dependent too, it's a far different spin from just relying on values.


----------

