PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How do i punish a player?



kulik
2016-03-15, 07:25 PM
Hello gilp world!

Hello my name is Terry and it is great to finally join a RPG community. Thank you for taking the time to look at my posts and possibly helping me out with my DM problems. Alrighty so recently i have launched a rise of the rune lords campaign: "Pathfinder' and for those familiar with this campaign setting in the first chapter part two: local hero's there is a quest : "THE SHOP KEEPERS DAUGHTER" there is a young shop keepers daughter whom tries to seduce a pc in the basement of the store house.

If the pc falls for the bait the father of the daughter comes back and argues/ fights the pc. Knowing that my pc has already displayed interest of the shopkeepers daughter and has takes a liking to killing over speech i know he will make a attempt on the shop keepers life. So how do i react to this without killing the pc for committing murder/assault in the town of sand-point. The book says that if the player murders the shopkeepers daughter he will be sent to the capital for trial of murder and executed but i fear that the player will claim i am ruining his fun and quit the group. Any advice would be appreciated thank you for you time

Sorry if this thread is hard to read, understand, or just boring because you answered it 100+ times

ManicOppressive
2016-03-15, 07:32 PM
Murder is a crime. If your player commits murder, there should be no delusion in their head that they are committing a crime. If your player does not like being reasonably punished for committing a crime, then they should not have committed the crime.

Players who don't acknowledge that their actions have consequences are doing one of the very few things that I would call objectively failing to roleplay. If he kills a citizen of a nation in cold blood, damn straight he should be tried and executed for murder. If he whines about you killing his fun and threatens to leave the group, tell him not to let the door hit his ass on the way out.

By all means, give him every opportunity to run from the law. Don't railroad him to his death for it. But I cannot fathom how a player could be under any misconception that no one would respond to a blatant murder in a civilized area.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-15, 07:36 PM
Well, as with all things in the law, one must be caught before they are tried and sentenced. If he kills the innkeeper quietly, and they leave town shortly after with the daughter in tow, then the group become fugitives. (If they definitively know someone in the group is responsible)

So if he gets caught, he gets caught.

Another option is to tell him the possible consequences and ask if he's sure. Before he does anything violent, let him know that the adventure module has a consequence in place that will likely involve the death of his character, and if he is totally sure he wants to risk that. And also remind him that people in real life don't tend to be let off easy for murder and his character would not be an exception.

That way you can stop the problem from happening at all.

kulik
2016-03-15, 07:45 PM
imnottrevor: In the past i have asked if the player wanted to do that and that there are going to be consequences for this act but he would throw his arms up claiming to kill his fun. Example: the town of standpoint was having a festival and out of nowhere goblins began to sack the city. The town was burning and the pc decided to light a camp fire in the road to cook a meal when he was awarded free meals and rooms for a week. i told him the guards would question him for lighting a fire in the middle of the street and ask him to put it out. of course he didn't like it

Ninja_Grand
2016-03-15, 08:03 PM
Well it sounds like you got a player problem, not a handling issue. Talk to the player about this. Let him know your worried about his actions.

Talyn
2016-03-15, 08:08 PM
Alternately, don't game with sociopaths. Anyone who acted like that around my table would not be invited back.

kulik
2016-03-15, 08:10 PM
Alternately, don't game with sociopaths. Anyone who acted like that around my table would not be invited back.

You friend just made my day, well thank you all for your advice and i believe i will rule it that if he kill the shopkeeper and gets caught he will have to make a new character or leave the group but i will ask if he truly wants to fight the shopkeeper.

kyoryu
2016-03-15, 08:13 PM
Alternately, don't game with sociopaths. Anyone who acted like that around my table would not be invited back.

Basically.

If someone doesn't understand that there might be consequences for murder, then... and if they're going to get bent out of shape about being questioned about camping in the street? That's a bit extreme.

I mean, if that's the kind of game you want to run, that's fine. But it sounds like it isn't.

It's really no different than wanting to go to the movies, and that one guy really wants to see a horror movie, and nobody else likes horror movies, and he refuses to see anything else but horror movies. You just go see something else without him.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 08:16 PM
You have what's known as a problem player. You need to make it abundantly clear to him that you are running a game where actions have consequences and that if that's not the kind of game he can have fun with, he can pack up his character sheet and move along.

Allowing one player to act like a spoiled child and ruin everyone else's fun because he can't be bothered to act reasonably is a failure for a DM. Don't worry about punishing his character in-game. This is an out of character, table problem and needs to be handled out of character. Once you've had the out of character talk, follow through with reasonable consequences to actions taken and brook no more of this BS "ruining my fun" nonsense.

You are a DM. You're in a position of authority. Act like it. That said, don't let it go to your head. You're in a position of authority because your friends trust you in such a position. If you abuse that trust you will be deposed from that position and drama will ensue.

kulik
2016-03-15, 08:17 PM
Basically.

If someone doesn't understand that there might be consequences for murder, then... and if they're going to get bent out of shape about being questioned about camping in the street? That's a bit extreme.

I mean, if that's the kind of game you want to run, that's fine. But it sounds like it isn't.

It's really no different than wanting to go to the movies, and that one guy really wants to see a horror movie, and nobody else likes horror movies, and he refuses to see anything else but horror movies. You just go see something else without him.

thanks man.i will try and sit down with him before session and tell him i am trying to run a more serious campaign and for kelb thank you for reminding me about the other players i am rather new to dming and i don't want to mess it up .

Silus
2016-03-15, 08:38 PM
Failing all the above, you could instead opt to run the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path as it's specifically designed to cater to evil characters. Not saying you should, but hey, options are good.

But yeah, I gotta agree with everyone else in that talking to the guy and sorting things out OOC are probably the best. If he can't be convinced to play nice and stop being a prat, then boot'em. Easier to deal with a group short a player than having to put up with a problem player.

kulik
2016-03-15, 08:54 PM
Failing all the above, you could instead opt to run the Hell's Vengeance Adventure Path as it's specifically designed to cater to evil characters. Not saying you should, but hey, options are good.

But yeah, I gotta agree with everyone else in that talking to the guy and sorting things out OOC are probably the best. If he can't be convinced to play nice and stop being a prat, then boot'em. Easier to deal with a group short a player than having to put up with a problem player.

Will definitely look into that adventure path and thanks for the help

Kane0
2016-03-15, 09:00 PM
The traditional punishment is by dice. You either rocks-fall the character with as many d6s as you can muster or throw a fistful of d20s at the player.

People over the ages have spiced this up of course. Common variants being lightning bolts from a deity or throwing books instead of dice but the sentiment remains the same.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 09:23 PM
The traditional punishment is by dice. You either rocks-fall the character with as many d6s as you can muster or throw a fistful of d20s at the player.

People over the ages have spiced this up of course. Common variants being lightning bolts from a deity or throwing books instead of dice but the sentiment remains the same.

I'm fond of a meteor from the heavens smashing his character to smitherees and leaving everyone nearby on the flat of their butts but otherwise unharmed.

Amphetryon
2016-03-15, 09:29 PM
imnottrevor: In the past i have asked if the player wanted to do that and that there are going to be consequences for this act but he would throw his arms up claiming to kill his fun. Example: the town of standpoint was having a festival and out of nowhere goblins began to sack the city. The town was burning and the pc decided to light a camp fire in the road to cook a meal when he was awarded free meals and rooms for a week. i told him the guards would question him for lighting a fire in the middle of the street and ask him to put it out. of course he didn't like it

Politely but firmly inform your friend that you are not running this module as a Grand Theft Auto simulator.

Mr Beer
2016-03-15, 09:41 PM
Politely but firmly inform your friend that you are not running this module as a Grand Theft Auto simulator.

LOL'd

Basically this. Actions have consequences in this campaign, that's how it works.

EDIT

Also, I don't view this as 'punishing' the player, rather he knows the situation and decides to shove his hand into the stove, he gets burned. The stove isn't angry with him, it's just a stove.

Bohandas
2016-03-15, 10:15 PM
Make the guards, or possibly the judge, open to bribery. Character isn't killed or hauled away but loses a hefty chunk of change

EDIT:
Also, how high level is the party and how magically adept is the town watch? Disguise and/or shapechanging magic may be their friend here

ie. The character isn't automatically imprisoned but now he has to hide from the guards

goto124
2016-03-15, 11:06 PM
Roll up a newspaper and smack the player away from your table while saying "Bad player, bad!"


I'm fond of a meteor from the heavens smashing his character to smitherees and leaving everyone nearby on the flat of their butts but otherwise unharmed.


throw a fistful of d20s at the player.

I think these two actions are the same :smallamused:

VexingFool
2016-03-16, 02:10 AM
Keep in mind that this encounter is supposed to be about the choice between talking and fighting. Also there is the possibility that your player will not win the fight with the shopkeeper. Ven Vinder is a 7th level commoner with 31hp, STR-14 and Improved unarmed strike. Unless your player is one of the better warriors in the party he's in for a tough fight. Your player should only be 2nd level so even if he's a caster Ven's 7HD make him immune to Sleep , resistant to Color Spray and he has enough HP's to weather direct damage spells. Also the player will have to cast spells defensively if he gets cornered in the basement.

If your player decides to fight and wins, you should give him an opportunity to avoid delivering the killing blow. Have Shayliss plead with him to not kill her father. If he does not kill Ven have the sheriff talk with the PC and warn him no further trouble will be tolerated. The party will be banned from the shop and several of the townsfolk will be less friendly. If the PC kills Ven then he will have to suffer the consequences for murder. Shayliss will shun the man who murdered her father and if he is captured the PC will be sent to Magnimar for trial.

If your PC decides to fight and loses, have Ven beat him to within an inch of his life. He'll wake up in a jail cell and Sheriff Hemlock will tell him that Shayliss saved his life and warn him not to have further contact. Just the PC will be banned from the shop but most townfolk won't be mad. They'll just say something along the lines of "That old hot-head Ven sure put that adventurer in his place..."

Kami2awa
2016-03-16, 03:15 AM
Hello gilp world!

Hello my name is Terry and it is great to finally join a RPG community. Thank you for taking the time to look at my posts and possibly helping me out with my DM problems. Alrighty so recently i have launched a rise of the rune lords campaign: "Pathfinder' and for those familiar with this campaign setting in the first chapter part two: local hero's there is a quest : "THE SHOP KEEPERS DAUGHTER" there is a young shop keepers daughter whom tries to seduce a pc in the basement of the store house.

If the pc falls for the bait the father of the daughter comes back and argues/ fights the pc. Knowing that my pc has already displayed interest of the shopkeepers daughter and has takes a liking to killing over speech i know he will make a attempt on the shop keepers life. So how do i react to this without killing the pc for committing murder/assault in the town of sand-point. The book says that if the player murders the shopkeepers daughter he will be sent to the capital for trial of murder and executed but i fear that the player will claim i am ruining his fun and quit the group. Any advice would be appreciated thank you for you time

Sorry if this thread is hard to read, understand, or just boring because you answered it 100+ times

Players often have difficulty determining if an encounter is supposed to be based on negotiation or combat, and most combat in RPGs ends with the death of one side or the other. If you want to avoid this, there is nothing wrong with hinting heavily when lethal force is not the way to go, especially with newer players. You can say things like:

"You're in the middle of the town full of guards, you know they'll attack you if you hurt the shopkeeper, and they outnumber you ten to one."

or

"You're winning the fight, but it occurs to you that this man is just defending his family. He's probably not evil. Do you really want to kill him or could you start dealing non-lethal damage, or perhaps offer him a chance to surrender?"

If he still kills the shopkeeper after that, the consequences should be realistic. I like the idea of allowing the player to buy his way out, which is a reasonable consequence of being a bit of an idiot even though common sense (i.e. the GM) told him it was a bad idea.

Lorsa
2016-03-16, 03:38 AM
Reading the thread title, I came here expecting to discuss punishing a player, something I am generally against.

But that's not at all what this is about is it? You want to punish the character. That's all fine and dandy. Actions have consequences.

Looking at it logically, for someone to be punished for a crime, it needs to be known. How would the authorities learn about who killed the shopkeeper and (possibly) his daughter? You can't just say "they know, you're dead" (but as always I assume the module doesn't actually help you with this). Even if they know, they need to catch the character.

Technically, all of the above could be solved with a "Wish" spell, but I don't think any spellcaster would waste that on a simple shopkeeper.

In any case, it seems clear that you and this player don't want to play the same game. Best to go separate ways.

Douche
2016-03-16, 07:29 AM
As others have said, just tell him it's right there in the module. It isn't you trying to screw him over. It's his own fault for not having the impulse control to not murder a guy at the first opportunity.


If it were me I'd just offer the guy 2 goats and a bushel of turnips, then ask for the daughters hand in marriage. All these suave father-murdering womanizers these days, that's what's ruining romance and making it impossible for nice guys like us to get a girl.

ace rooster
2016-03-16, 07:48 AM
DM: "roll wisdom"

DC 3 for probably a bad idea. DC 10 to remember that the police station is literally next door.

DM: "Party roll sense motive against his bluff. Anyone that passes roll wisdom."

DM passes note around.

roll initiative. Surprise round for anyone that beat the sense motive (innkeeper included).


Hopefully the process will be drawn out enough that the player will reconsider, or at least make them (and the party) prepared to live with the consequences. PvP is possible, but probably inevitable in the circumstances anyway.

Edit: missed the system. Modify as appropriate.

JeenLeen
2016-03-16, 10:53 AM
As others have said, just tell him it's right there in the module. It isn't you trying to screw him over. It's his own fault for not having the impulse control to not murder a guy at the first opportunity.


If it were me I'd just offer the guy 2 goats and a bushel of turnips, then ask for the daughters hand in marriage. All these suave father-murdering womanizers these days, that's what's ruining romance and making it impossible for nice guys like us to get a girl.

This is the biggest point to me, especially the it's right here in the module. In some games, adventurers can commit crimes with little impact. You are probably leaving town the next day for another dungeon anyway, so what does it matter if the town sheriff (who is probably weak compared to you) is angry. The idea that a shopkeep or a couple guards could beat you might not enter the mind. Especially for a module, you can stress it's in the module, and that you're not trying to railroad him or ruin his fun. This is just part of the game you all agreed to play. If he does not want to keep playing, that is unfortunate, and maybe another module would work better in the future.

This could be a problem player and need out-of-character discussion on what's okay and what's not, and how for everyone to have fun. If such is the case I hope you all can talk through it and work something out. I have one friend who does zany stuff in-game, but we've learned how to moderate our playstyles so he doesn't get us killed but we tolerate some of his zaniness. We all have fun.

As for punishment, if he attacks and wins but doesn't kill the shopkeep, I could see it largely being swept under the rug. Main punishment is likely the girl no longer likes the character and some unfriendliness from town. The shopkeep may want to keep it relatively quiet (i.e., not call guards) lest thieves hear he's an easy mark, for example.

Gallade
2016-03-16, 12:29 PM
I would use "Karma" to punish heavily Stupid-aligned actions on the part of players. They're trying to cheese out some extra items or experience, or pull some background out of their ass claiming they have to benefit from it? Give them a cursed item or have the event they insist on happening be negative.
They adopt the "attack everything in sight including neutrals" method? They're so full of hatred the ones around them give it back, give a few points of to-hit bonus to enemies who attack him.
They go kleptomaniac? Have them accidentally steal an important item which gets recognized once they try to pawn it off or are frisked by guards.

All this while dropping anvilicious hints of the consequences of their actions. "This person means you no harm, you could be in trouble if you attack them."

Geddy2112
2016-03-16, 01:31 PM
To echo the other posters, in game actions are punished(or rewarded) with in game consequences. Commit murder in a city and people find out-get tried and executed. Spend 1 gold on ale-get 1 gold worth of ale. Save a kitten from a tree-get gold or favor as reward.

Players that do this kind of thing frequently are called murderhobos-homeless vagrants who simply run around and kill anything that stands in their way. If you don't want this kind of game, enforce logical consequences.

Out of game, don't play with murderhobos. Don't allow that at your table-they can shape up or ship out. If they want to play that kind of game, tell them to go play Grand Theft Auto, or Elder Scrolls/Fallout and take out their murderhobo fantasies there, alone.

Jay R
2016-03-16, 01:59 PM
So how do i react to this without killing the pc for committing murder/assault in the town of sand-point.

Norman Douglas once wrote, "It seldom pays to be rude. It never pays to be only half-rude."

Similarly, it rarely pays for the DM to tell the PCs how to play. It never pays to only sorta tell them how to play. If you are not willing to play this kind of game, don't play out the consequences. Refuse to play that way at all.

When he says, "I attack the shop-keeper," drop the DM persona instantly. Then say, "Hold it, <player-name>." DON'T use the character's name.

"That's not an adventure. It's just a tawdry murder. Someone who does this isn't an adventurer, just a criminal. He would be Evil, and the entire town will hunt him down. He will in all probability be executed. That's just not what a hero does, and not a game I'm willing to run."

After his initial protest, say, "I don't care. If you want to play a game like that, then I hope you can find a DM who wants to run it. But I won't. I'll be happy to run a game so you can pretend to be heroic and brave and adventurous, including killing monsters who are dangerous to the countryside. But I will not spend time helping you pretend to commit meaningless murder."

Then stick to it.

Jormengand
2016-03-16, 03:23 PM
Let it happen. I'm currently running a game where the characters are wanted criminals in almost every country and one of them slaughtered an entire village for the sheer hell of it. Well okay, now I'm playing a game where they're on the run and have to save the world before the authorities catch up to them, never mind the villains. Roll. With. It. Punishing people or shouting at them isn't going to help. Saying "I don't care" to the player's protests is the absolute last thing in the entire world you want to do. If the player wants to do that kind of thing, they can.

Other things we've had include a fighter having a punch-up with an oracle in a smithy, and a wizard stealing people's power and running for the hills. You should still be able to make a fun hook out of that. Try to think in terms of working with the players, not against them, because that is literally the point of an RPG.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-16, 04:55 PM
Let it happen. I'm currently running a game where the characters are wanted criminals in almost every country and one of them slaughtered an entire village for the sheer hell of it. Well okay, now I'm playing a game where they're on the run and have to save the world before the authorities catch up to them, never mind the villains. Roll. With. It. Punishing people or shouting at them isn't going to help. Saying "I don't care" to the player's protests is the absolute last thing in the entire world you want to do. If the player wants to do that kind of thing, they can.

Other things we've had include a fighter having a punch-up with an oracle in a smithy, and a wizard stealing people's power and running for the hills. You should still be able to make a fun hook out of that. Try to think in terms of working with the players, not against them, because that is literally the point of an RPG.

The GM is a player, and is not forced to do anything they don't find fun. The GM is neither the Ruler nor Servant of the players. They're just the guy that plays Everything Else.

The players must also work with the GM, not force him to do whatever they want to do.

Jormengand
2016-03-16, 05:09 PM
The GM is a player, and is not forced to do anything they don't find fun. The GM is neither the Ruler nor Servant of the players. They're just the guy that plays Everything Else.

The players must also work with the GM, not force him to do whatever they want to do.

True. But the GM should be able to adapt to the situation if they're to be a good GM, rather than flatly denying whatever the players want to do if he doesn't like it.

kyoryu
2016-03-16, 05:15 PM
True. But the GM should be able to adapt to the situation if they're to be a good GM, rather than flatly denying whatever the players want to do if he doesn't like it.

Absolutely. But there's two things possibly going on here in addition:

1) If everyone agreed to "heroic adventure" and then one player decides he wants to play "serial killer rampage", then that's really not fair to the rest of the group.
2) If the player, out-of-character, complains about *any* type of reasonable in-character response to his actions, then that's a player problem.

Some people really do just want to "take their demon for a walk" in roleplaying games. And there's nothing wrong with that if you like it, but it's a *very* specific type of game that's not to everyone's taste.

Talakeal
2016-03-16, 05:28 PM
Could I get some more info about the premise of this quest?

Why is the daughter trying to seduce the PC? What does she hope to accomplish? And likewise why does the shopkeeper attack?

As presented it almost seems like they, not the PC, would be the murderers in this case if the fight doesn't go in their favor.

Keltest
2016-03-16, 05:44 PM
Could I get some more info about the premise of this quest?

Why is the daughter trying to seduce the PC? What does she hope to accomplish? And likewise why does the shopkeeper attack?

As presented it almost seems like they, not the PC, would be the murderers in this case if the fight doesn't go in their favor.

Indeed, this seems incredibly shady.

Having said that, if the player wants to do something dumb, roll with it. Let there be realistic consequences, and if they protest, ask them what they expected to happen?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-16, 05:47 PM
True. But the GM should be able to adapt to the situation if they're to be a good GM, rather than flatly denying whatever the players want to do if he doesn't like it.

Then the players should adapt to anything the GM does even if they don't like it if they're to be good players.

If that sounds asenine, then that explains why the reverse sounds asenine. It's the same thing.

It is one thing to adapt to a situation. It is another to force yourself to do something you don't find fun and to dedicate hours of your time to it. Suggesting that people do the latter is asburd. Setting limits is ok.

When you're playing a TRPG, EVERYONE should be having fun. Not just the players. If ANYONE is not having fun, then there needs to be a discussion. And if that means setting a firm limit, so be it. Setting limits is 100% ok. For anyone at the table. Period.

Jormengand
2016-03-16, 06:21 PM
Then the players should adapt to anything the GM does even if they don't like it if they're to be good players.

Absolutely, yes. I agree.

Keltest
2016-03-16, 06:23 PM
Absolutely, yes. I agree.

Alternatively, if they don't like something, call the GM out on it. The onus to change is not necessarily on the GM, but the objective of the game is to have fun, so when you aren't having fun, speak up about it. And that goes for the GM as well.

Suffering in silence ensures that you will continue to not enjoy whats going on.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-16, 06:43 PM
Absolutely, yes. I agree.

Then this GM can do whatever he wants to to deal with this problem, including not letting the characters do a thing. And the players need to just deal.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-16, 08:41 PM
Indeed, this seems incredibly shady.

Having said that, if the player wants to do something dumb, roll with it. Let there be realistic consequences, and if they protest, ask them what they expected to happen?

The Shopkeepers Daughter sounds like a bad plot. A crazy murderhobo dad is not exactly the stuff of legends(unless your name is Zeus).

Though if I did let it happen, I'd be more fantasy then ''realistic''. Getting ''arrested'' and a ''trial'' and ''laws'', blah, blah, blah....no fun there. But say...the Shopkeepers ghost, or a devils temptation or something like that can be lots of fun.

Keltest
2016-03-16, 08:43 PM
The Shopkeepers Daughter sounds like a bad plot. A crazy murderhobo dad is not exactly the stuff of legends(unless your name is Zeus).

Though if I did let it happen, I'd be more fantasy then ''realistic''. Getting ''arrested'' and a ''trial'' and ''laws'', blah, blah, blah....no fun there. But say...the Shopkeepers ghost, or a devils temptation or something like that can be lots of fun.

If the intent is to discourage such actions in the future, rewarding them with fun is generally the opposite of what you should do.

Anyway, its better than giant rats in your closet eating your pillows.

icefractal
2016-03-16, 09:07 PM
I remember finding this scene to be a weird thing to include back when I was running RotR. If it was a sandbox, then sure, put the hook there, and if the PCs have to become fugitives then so be it. But RotR isn't at all a sandbox, and being persona-non-grata around Sandpoint screws up the rest of the AP. So what exactly was the point here? To provide a trap where one or more players might have to switch characters?

Of course, you can just resolve it peacefully, and then you're fine. But still - a strange thing to put in a fairly linear AP.

goto124
2016-03-16, 09:20 PM
I would use "Karma" to punish heavily Stupid-aligned actions on the part of players. They're trying to cheese out some extra items or experience, or pull some background out of their ass claiming they have to benefit from it? Give them a cursed item or have the event they insist on happening be negative.
They adopt the "attack everything in sight including neutrals" method? They're so full of hatred the ones around them give it back, give a few points of to-hit bonus to enemies who attack him.
They go kleptomaniac? Have them accidentally steal an important item which gets recognized once they try to pawn it off or are frisked by guards.

All this while dropping anvilicious hints of the consequences of their actions. "This person means you no harm, you could be in trouble if you attack them."

New alignment system: Karma!

Would it be a good idea though?

Malifice
2016-03-16, 09:36 PM
Hello gilp world!

Hello my name is Terry and it is great to finally join a RPG community. Thank you for taking the time to look at my posts and possibly helping me out with my DM problems. Alrighty so recently i have launched a rise of the rune lords campaign: "Pathfinder' and for those familiar with this campaign setting in the first chapter part two: local hero's there is a quest : "THE SHOP KEEPERS DAUGHTER" there is a young shop keepers daughter whom tries to seduce a pc in the basement of the store house.

If the pc falls for the bait the father of the daughter comes back and argues/ fights the pc. Knowing that my pc has already displayed interest of the shopkeepers daughter and has takes a liking to killing over speech i know he will make a attempt on the shop keepers life. So how do i react to this without killing the pc for committing murder/assault in the town of sand-point. The book says that if the player murders the shopkeepers daughter he will be sent to the capital for trial of murder and executed but i fear that the player will claim i am ruining his fun and quit the group. Any advice would be appreciated thank you for you time

Sorry if this thread is hard to read, understand, or just boring because you answered it 100+ times

You should have forseen this problem by allowing an Evil PC in the party to begin with.

And if you tell me he's not Evil, yet intends to murder his love intrests father for something rather trivial, then we are reading off very different pages.

Bohandas
2016-03-16, 10:57 PM
You could whack them with a rolled-up newspaper

Draconium
2016-03-16, 11:09 PM
You should have forseen this problem by allowing an Evil PC in the party to begin with.

I disagree. The problem is the player, and a problem player is going to be a problem no matter what alignment is written on his sheet. I've personally DM'd for parites where Evil characters had their role, despite most of the characters being Good. And it worked, because none of them were stupid about it. In fact, the most problems I've ever had in a party were caused by Good characters (one of them was a Paladin, no less), often towards other Good characters or the DM. In every case, it was an OOC problen, not an IC one. I've almost never had a problem with Evil characters in a Good party, or even an entirely Evil party.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-16, 11:32 PM
You should have forseen this problem by allowing an Evil PC in the party to begin with.

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha. No.

Evil doesn't have to be stupid. The problem is not evil, in itself, that's the problem here. It's chaotic evil being played really, really poorly. The problem is stupidity being allowed to run rampant.

A chaotic evil character can resolve this scenario thusly; nail the innkeeper's daughter. When her dad gets antsy about it you open with intimidate and, if that doesn't work, you beat him like a drum but -don't- kill him. You're in civilization and you're not so stupid as to think you can take on the whole town guard by yourself. Murder leads to execution but beating somebody down in self-defense leads to fines and maybe a couple days in the klink for disturbing the peace.

If you want the lawful evil version then... hell, let's just call an expert. Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

Malifice
2016-03-17, 12:15 AM
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha. No.

Evil doesn't have to be stupid. The problem is not evil, in itself, that's the problem here. It's chaotic evil being played really, really poorly. The problem is stupidity being allowed to run rampant.

Im not saynig he has to be stupid. After he murders the father, he also silences the love interest.

And I have no problems with Evil PCs or DMing them, and I agree that they are often played extremely poorly (as psychopaths). Seeing as the baseline N or even G aligned PC in many campaigns is a murderhobo, when players play 'evil' they tend to be moustache twirling pschopaths who would make Dahmer and Manson blush.

Evil is nuanced. Walter White or Tony Soprano or Francis Underwood.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-17, 02:22 AM
Im not saynig he has to be stupid. After he murders the father, he also silences the love interest.

And I have no problems with Evil PCs or DMing them, and I agree that they are often played extremely poorly (as psychopaths). Seeing as the baseline N or even G aligned PC in many campaigns is a murderhobo, when players play 'evil' they tend to be moustache twirling pschopaths who would make Dahmer and Manson blush.

Evil is nuanced. Walter White or Tony Soprano or Francis Underwood.

This and your previous statement are at odds with one another.

It seems like you're saying that there's nothing wrong with well made evil characters but that players are incapable of creating them. The problem, then, isn't allowing an evil PC, as you suggested previously. It's a problem player not wanting to accept or not being aware of the idea of action and consequence in regards to TT gaming.

Even in video games; grand theft auto, saints row, skyrim, ESO; wanton murder draws unwanted attention from authorities. There's really no excuse for his nonsense any more.

Knaight
2016-03-17, 02:32 AM
When he says, "I attack the shop-keeper," drop the DM persona instantly. Then say, "Hold it, <player-name>." DON'T use the character's name.

"That's not an adventure. It's just a tawdry murder. Someone who does this isn't an adventurer, just a criminal. He would be Evil, and the entire town will hunt him down. He will in all probability be executed. That's just not what a hero does, and not a game I'm willing to run."

After his initial protest, say, "I don't care. If you want to play a game like that, then I hope you can find a DM who wants to run it. But I won't. I'll be happy to run a game so you can pretend to be heroic and brave and adventurous, including killing monsters who are dangerous to the countryside. But I will not spend time helping you pretend to commit meaningless murder."

I'd probably phrase this differently, but I'm seconding this advice. If you don't want to GM a game about a bunch of murderous psychopaths, you don't have to.

Malifice
2016-03-17, 03:31 AM
This and your previous statement are at odds with one another.

It seems like you're saying that there's nothing wrong with well made evil characters but that players are incapable of creating them. The problem, then, isn't allowing an evil PC, as you suggested previously. It's a problem player not wanting to accept or not being aware of the idea of action and consequence in regards to TT gaming.

Even in video games; grand theft auto, saints row, skyrim, ESO; wanton murder draws unwanted attention from authorities. There's really no excuse for his nonsense any more.

My point was if you allow evil PCs in the party, people are gonna get murdered.

So if NPCs getting murdered isnt for you, or you feel (as DM) the player wont like - or isnt mature enough to deal with - the potential repurcussions, then perhaps saying 'no evil PC's is a better option.

There are plenty of players that arent mature enough for (or simply dont like) evil PCs or evil parties. In the right hands they can be awesome, dont get me wrong. Its just you need to know your players and your group.

This guy doesnt sound like the kind of dude that should be playing evil.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-17, 04:16 AM
My point was if you allow evil PCs in the party, people are gonna get murdered.

So if NPCs getting murdered isnt for you, or you feel (as DM) the player wont like - or isnt mature enough to deal with - the potential repurcussions, then perhaps saying 'no evil PC's is a better option.

There are plenty of players that arent mature enough for (or simply dont like) evil PCs or evil parties. In the right hands they can be awesome, dont get me wrong. Its just you need to know your players and your group.

This guy doesnt sound like the kind of dude that should be playing evil.

It's not the DM's job to decide if someone is worthy to play something. If you don't want evil PC's that's fine. If you don't have a problem with them, then you work with it when someone plays one. If he does so poorly, then consequences will smack him around until he figures out how to do it better. When he complains about consequences "ruining his fun" you tell him "too bad. You do stupid crap, it comes back to bite you. That's life. Do it smarter next time."

Red Fel
2016-03-17, 11:28 AM
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha. No.

Evil doesn't have to be stupid. The problem is not evil, in itself, that's the problem here. It's chaotic evil being played really, really poorly. The problem is stupidity being allowed to run rampant.

A chaotic evil character can resolve this scenario thusly; nail the innkeeper's daughter. When her dad gets antsy about it you open with intimidate and, if that doesn't work, you beat him like a drum but -don't- kill him. You're in civilization and you're not so stupid as to think you can take on the whole town guard by yourself. Murder leads to execution but beating somebody down in self-defense leads to fines and maybe a couple days in the klink for disturbing the peace.

If you want the lawful evil version then... hell, let's just call an expert. Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/The+english+dub+of+hellsing+ultimate+is+actually+g ood+_8ed4379ca665f6822d595c67db731e82.gif

... Sup?

Seriously, I'm not sure why I even need to be here. Everyone's pretty much said what needs to be said. This is a case of a problem player playing a Stupid Evil character. Give him exactly what's coming to him, and show him the door if when he pitches a fit.

You don't need a tutorial on Smart Evil. He does, but he's not here, groveling on his knees like the miserable little wretch that he is, begging for scraps of wisdom which I, in my infinite majesty, may bestow. He's not the one saying, "I realize I'm screwing this up; please, please, awesome Red Fel, teach me how to be epic like you."

He's not saying that. Should be, but isn't.

Instead, you're here. You're here, saying, "How do I handle this?" And everyone has told you how. And now I am telling you, and when I speak, one does well to listen. And I echo what others have said - in-character actions have in-character consequences, and if you don't like that, go play a video game.

Now, Malifice. You disappoint me, Malifice. I mean, you say something smart like,


This guy doesnt sound like the kind of dude that should be playing evil.

So I know you know better. And you have that awesome name, and I respect the name. It's a great name.

But then you say something like,


My point was if you allow evil PCs in the party, people are gonna get murdered.

And now we have to have a talk. Meet me over by Camera 4, Mal.

Okay, buddy. See, here's the thing. Evil doesn't equal murder. Murder happens to be an Evil act, sure, and I can always respect a bit of pride in one's work, but let's not let one thing define us, hm? I don't insist that all Good characters, upon reaching the age of puberty, have to have saplings surgically implanted in their recta, in order to qualify for certain stick-up-there classes and features. Let's not pigeonhole one another, hm?

I've played Evil characters who never murder. This should surprise precisely nobody. I've played Evil characters who never kill. I've played Evil characters who never raise a single hand or weapon against another living creature. It's not as hard as you'd think.

Evil isn't about taking lives. It's not even about causing pain. It's about ruination. It's about destroying that which is good and pure and pathetically weak. Sometimes, you use murder for that. Sometimes, physical torture or brutality. Sometimes, you use psychology. Sometimes, you accomplish your goals simply by latching onto the noblest, purest paragon of decency you can find, and slowly eroding their ideals until they become your medium to inflict your Evil on the world. And even then, you don't have to have them kill people.

Point is, Evil in the party doesn't mean that people are going to get murdered. In fact, if people are murdered while there is a Smart Evil party member, in all likelihood the perpetrator will be anybody but him, simply because he's smart enough to keep his own nose clean.

Savvy?

Segev
2016-03-17, 11:43 AM
The question, to me, boils down to a few points:

1) Is the innkeeper going to open up with violence, and, if so, does he do so with lethal force?
2) If the PC would have to throw the first punch (or sword blow, or what-have-you) for it to get violent, how likely is this PC to resort to violence if all that's happening is he's being yelled at?
3) How likely is the innkeeper to back down if violence is threatened? How much violence would have to be threatened to change this? (e.g., if he's just fine with fisticuffs, how does he feel when a sword is drawn or a wizard starts chanting spells?)

The things you, as DM, can control are the NPC's behavior and choices. If the NPC is going to start a combat, expecting the PC to respond in kind is rather reasonable. If the NPC is using nonlethal and the PC resorts to lethal, having the NPC try to back down, intimidated, is valid, unless you think the NPC wouldn't/shouldn't. If the NPC is willing to take it "to the death" before attempting to surrender, that's ... really the fault of the module or the DM for running him that way. (Too often, "to the death" is assumed for all critters involved in combat, when really, things other than "kill everybody on the other side" can be the objective.)

If the PC, though, is the sort to either initiate violence just because he's being yelled at, and use lethal force, then...well, that's talk-to-the-player time. Make sure he's thinking it through and knows the consequences. The biggest thing is... don't set it up to look like a combat the PC has to fight to the death and then punish him for not losing that fight (because, to him, it will look like his choice was "let the NPC kill him or be labeled as evil"). Have the innkeeper react like a human being (or elf, or whatever he is): if he finds his daughter in bed with a terrifying thug, he might try to start something, but if it turns violent, is he really the sort to fight an armed and dangerous brute with his bare hands? Or is he going to retreat for help, or be cowed?

Jormengand
2016-03-17, 12:07 PM
Then this GM can do whatever he wants to to deal with this problem, including not letting the characters do a thing. And the players need to just deal.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you need to think in terms of working together, not against each other. "Punishing" someone or ignoring their opinion or arguing them down for the sake of winning is the last thing you should do.

Keltest
2016-03-17, 12:17 PM
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you need to think in terms of working together, not against each other. "Punishing" someone or ignoring their opinion or arguing them down for the sake of winning is the last thing you should do.

It may not be what you meant, but I have a hard time finding any other way to interpret what you said. So maybe we should take a couple steps back and elaborate a little bit more on our positions?

A good player is clear when they are not having fun. They don't have to stand up right at that moment and tackle the GM over it, but taking it without doing anything is doing yourself a disservice for playing a game you don't find fun, and everyone else a disservice for either misleading them or inflicting your not-having-fun passive aggressiveness on them.

Jormengand
2016-03-17, 12:37 PM
It may not be what you meant, but I have a hard time finding any other way to interpret what you said. So maybe we should take a couple steps back and elaborate a little bit more on our positions?

Players and DMs have to adapt to allow each other to play the game. If they can't compromise, they shouldn't be playing together. That's it.

Templarkommando
2016-03-17, 01:06 PM
Think about other roleplaying games that you've played on PC or console. Take Skyrim for example. If you wander into Whiterun and randomly murder a Battleborn or a Greymane, the guard is going to be after you. This isn't the game "trying to ruin your fun," it's the game trying to be realistic. I remember in Baldur's Gate (1 and 2), if you committed a crime, the guards would come after you, and if you killed those guards, odds are that more would show up later. If you tried to steal from someone in the Thieves Guild (of all places) in BG2, a crazy powerful Fighter/Thief would show up out of nowhere and gut your main character from behind in one shot - assuming you got caught. I played a game (still play it from time to time) called Darklands that came out in the early 90s. If you got caught slinking around the side streets late at night, the guard would assume that you were a thief and would start recognizing you as being wanted, so they would try to throw you in jail.

The response to "You're just ruining my fun," is "Stop sucking at being a thief. Thieves are supposed to be subtle - Murder is not subtle."

If your character gets thrown in jail for doing something dumb, the obvious next quest it "Let's break him out of jail," or "Let's talk to the magistrate and try to get him off." Absolutely failing that, roll a new character. Maybe, this time they can play a less overt thief.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-17, 01:33 PM
Players and DMs have to adapt to allow each other to play the game. If they can't compromise, they shouldn't be playing together. That's it.

That is fine. But setting limits is also ok. Once things are going in a direction you feel uncomfortable enough with, you have the right to say "No more."

Frankly, you came across not as saying "compromise" but as saying "you are beholden to your players, and you just need to shut up and do whatever they want to do." Which I will vehemently disagree with to the end of my days.

BootStrapTommy
2016-03-17, 01:46 PM
Out of curiosity, why does the module not account from self-defense. If the other players are there as witnesses or the shop keeper's daughter isn't a total sleeze, why would the player be charged with killing someone who attacks them?

wumpus
2016-03-17, 03:32 PM
Reading the thread title, I came here expecting to discuss punishing a player, something I am generally against.

But that's not at all what this is about is it? You want to punish the character. That's all fine and dandy. Actions have consequences.

Looking at it logically, for someone to be punished for a crime, it needs to be known. How would the authorities learn about who killed the shopkeeper and (possibly) his daughter? You can't just say "they know, you're dead" (but as always I assume the module doesn't actually help you with this). Even if they know, they need to catch the character.

Technically, all of the above could be solved with a "Wish" spell, but I don't think any spellcaster would waste that on a simple shopkeeper.

In any case, it seems clear that you and this player don't want to play the same game. Best to go separate ways.

I'm guessing this depends on the game in question. In 5e it doesn't matter. You get enough of the watch together, they will take down any party they need to. 3.x is another question: Belkar could only be stopped by the rest of the OOTS or possibly two of the top 6 or so of the sapphire guard (he was basically equal to Miko, who was their best in combat. So at least 2 reasonably close to her and probably a few more to match). If you are in the Forgotten Realms, either the shopkeeper or the daughter is likely to pull out a relic/artifact as a weapon and gut him in a single move (both aren't likely to be epic characters, but I'd expect at least one to be).

While I'm sure whoever wrote the module had this player in mind, you have to allow the game to bust the character. The module shows you exactly what the expected outcome is, presumably there is a decent sized watch full of characters who can bring in the entire party dead or alive (and presumably enough magic to finger the correct character). Of course, the rest of the party will be like the OOTS in deciding if they want to resurrect Belkar (if you can't convince the party to leave him dead, you need to let someone else take a turn behind the screen).

Jormengand
2016-03-17, 04:09 PM
you came across

You can read between the lines all you want, but nothing is written there. I've made my point clear; I expect you to do the same with your objection, if any, thereto.

Keltest
2016-03-17, 04:16 PM
Absolutely, yes. I agree.


You can read between the lines all you want, but nothing is written there. I've made my point clear; I expect you to do the same with your objection, if any, thereto.

I think the fact that so many people are on a different page as you indicates that no, you did not make your point as clear as you thought you had.

Jormengand
2016-03-17, 04:42 PM
I think the fact that so many people are on a different page as you indicates that no, you did not make your point as clear as you thought you had.

I made my point abundantly clear by spelling out what I meant after that first quote you quoted but before the second one. If you cannot understand co-operation and compromise, I don't know how to help you.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-17, 05:20 PM
You can read between the lines all you want, but nothing is written there. I've made my point clear; I expect you to do the same with your objection, if any, thereto.

Ah yes, it is us who have victimized you by our reading between the lines to find hidden meanings, and not a poorly worded initial argument that has brought us here!

Bruh. Not a personal attack. You came across differently than you meant. Happens to us all. It's a text-based medium. Comes with the territory. I get what you mean now, and I agree with THAT point.

Take a chill pill. It's all good.

Malifice
2016-03-17, 09:09 PM
It's not the DM's job to decide if someone is worthy to play something.

I disagree. As a DM I know my players. Its expressly my job to manage disruptive players. And personally I would rather nip it in the bud before the problem started, than wait for it to happen, cause the game to come to a screeching halt and deal with it then.

Sometimes its just easier to say No at the beginning (and deal with a bit of discontent) and avoid much larger problems later on down the track.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-17, 11:11 PM
I disagree. As a DM I know my players. Its expressly my job to manage disruptive players. And personally I would rather nip it in the bud before the problem started, than wait for it to happen, cause the game to come to a screeching halt and deal with it then.

Sometimes its just easier to say No at the beginning (and deal with a bit of discontent) and avoid much larger problems later on down the track.

That's not judging worthiness. That's laying out expectations. Somebody acting counter to the discussed expectations isn't unworthy to play that type of character. He's a problem player that's violating the social contract. You don't "manage" disruptive players. You either convince them not to be disruptive or you show them the door. You can explain why the behavior is disruptive if you think they don't understand what the problem is but a DM is not a baby-sitter.

"Managing" disruptive players is entering into a competition of wills with them; you push, they push back. That push-back is something to be avoided. By engaging in such competition, you're causing a problem too. You're feeding fuel to the fire. You're saying, "You play -my- way and that's that."

You avoid this by saying, metaphorically, "Here are the lines. Cross them and you get a warning. I get tired of warning you, you're out of the game." You decide where the 'lines' are by discussing it with your players before the game ever begins. When the game starts, everyone knows what thet rules* are and anyone who doesn't want to play by the rules everyone agreed to is a D-bag that's not worth gaming with at all. No one will blame you for giving such a person the boot.


*rules of the social engagement, not necessarily rules of the game.

goto124
2016-03-18, 12:39 AM
Think about other roleplaying games that you've played on PC or console. Take Skyrim for example. If you wander into Whiterun and randomly murder a Battleborn or a Greymane, the guard is going to be after you.

How difficult is it to kill the guard?

Also, in computer games, there's only one player who can run around doing whatever he likes. In a social TTRPG, there're other players who have to play with That One Player no matter what unless he's kicked out.

Plus, computer games allow for respawning (or rather, reloading from a save point) and make it easier to recover from mistakes. TTRPGs are more 'realistic' and don't have such features.

Templarkommando
2016-03-18, 02:32 AM
How difficult is it to kill the guard?

Also, in computer games, there's only one player who can run around doing whatever he likes. In a social TTRPG, there're other players who have to play with That One Player no matter what unless he's kicked out.

Plus, computer games allow for respawning (or rather, reloading from a save point) and make it easier to recover from mistakes. TTRPGs are more 'realistic' and don't have such features.

I'm guessing a good portion of your question is rhetorical, but I wish to make it known that part of the deal is that it's generally not especially difficult for a character to kill a guard especially if the PCs are reasonably high level.... level 10 <insert PC class here> vs. level 1 warrior/commoner isn't really a contest.

Finally, while you can't go back to a save or a respawn, you can definitely reroll a character that is basically a clone of the last one.It helps if your crazy character does things a little different the next time. That's a little bit like saving - though admittedly it's not the same thing.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-18, 02:55 AM
How difficult is it to kill the guard?

One? not so bad by level 15~ish. The dozen or so in any settlement? not before moderately-high level. The noteworthy thing, however, is that you effectively cannot operate inside civilization without stealthing around until you allow yourself to be arrested.


Also, in computer games, there's only one player who can run around doing whatever he likes. In a social TTRPG, there're other players who have to play with That One Player no matter what unless he's kicked out.

A fair point. However, even in video games you have to deal with cause and effect. See my note about skyrim's guards above.


Plus, computer games allow for respawning (or rather, reloading from a save point) and make it easier to recover from mistakes. TTRPGs are more 'realistic' and don't have such features.

Yeah, taking the teeth out of consequence does make it easier to ignore. Then again, raise dead and re-rolling are things and, just like in a video game, you only lose a bit of progress to it (depending on system of course.)

Knaight
2016-03-18, 03:00 AM
That's not judging worthiness. That's laying out expectations. Somebody acting counter to the discussed expectations isn't unworthy to play that type of character. He's a problem player that's violating the social contract. You don't "manage" disruptive players. You either convince them not to be disruptive or you show them the door. You can explain why the behavior is disruptive if you think they don't understand what the problem is but a DM is not a baby-sitter.

On the other hand, you can have players who are generally functional, but probably shouldn't play certain types of character - or even certain types of characters in particular groups. I have two good examples here, one of the first case, and one of the second. For the first, I GMed for a player that we'll call Bob, on the basis of it being a suitably generic pseudonym. Back in high school, Bob wanted to play a character who was, among other things, lesbian. There are plenty of players for whom this would be a complete non-issue; I assumed Bob was in that category at the time. He was not, ended up playing a stereotypical nymphomaniac as imagined by a teenager, and now Bob has some new character restrictions.

Bob is arguably a problem player, but under most circumstances it just never came up. The second example involves someone who absolutely wasn't. I suspect that in the case presented, the Bob situation is very possible, though the outright problem player scenario is too.

For the second one, there's another player we'll call Dave. For a while, I was the GM for a group that pulled for a group of mostly friends, in which everyone was friends with one of the players originally, and we were all generally friends with each other. However, there was some tension from parts of the group occasionally that was mostly tied to real world religion and politics, and two people in particular could get into it for a while while the rest of us either waited for it to be over or tried to defuse things. Usually, this would be a total non-issue in game; if anyone other than Dave and the other person who got into it (we'll go with John here) was GMing, they could even have religion be a part of the game with no issue.

However, under no circumstances should Dave ever be playing anything too Cleric like. That was a one way ticket to the Dave-John argument show, with the potential to get ugly. There were likely also potential character issues for John, but that never came up. He was a bit of a problem player in general though. Still, it was entirely a group dynamic issue. Take John out of the group, and there would be no issue with Dave playing the given character. There was also another player (the person who brought the group together, and also usually central organizer and host), Kate (also a pseudonym). She's someone who tends to get uncomfortable with friends arguing, and while John grated on some nerves, everyone was on good terms with Kate. Had the group been formed without Kate, there also would have been no issue with Dave playing whatever character, as John couldn't start up the John-Dave religious argument under the safe assumption that the people who agreed philisophically with Dave would wade in in defuse-the-argument mode.

I will grant that the second situation is much more particular than the first. With that said, I don't think it's necessarily any more uncommon as a class of problems; they just tend to be more complex. Maybe it's a hot button issue, maybe it's some generally benign thing that bothers a particular player, the point is that broad group dynamics exist where one person really shouldn't play certain characters within that group in particular. This could possibly fit the player described in this thread, although I doubt it. That's not to say that there's no group in which they wouldn't be a problem player while playing a psychopathic murderer with an out of character expectation that it won't bring harm to their character, just that it's the sort of thing likely to poison a lot of games.

kyoryu
2016-03-18, 12:59 PM
What he said.

In all honesty, i think the "problem in <xyz> situation" player is far more common. I've only met one person that I've had to blanket ban from any game I ran.

Talakeal
2016-03-19, 01:48 AM
To the OP:

Have you already run the encounter in question? If so I would love to hear an update on how it went, if not I may have some more advice.


The scenario setup sounded weird, so I borrowed the book from a friend and read it myself.

So, it appears that the girl is genuinely attracted to the PC, tricks them to coming back to her place, the father finds them and if he can't be talked down beats up the PC. If the PC kills him they are then arrested and tried for murder.

A couple of easy outs:

First, you choose which PC it is that she fixates on. Just choose one that isn't evil / violent.

Second, she generally chooses the most "charming" PC, so it shouldn't be too hard for the character to avoid the combat and talk their way out of the situation.

Third, if presented with lethal force the girl's father runs away rather than staying to fight. So actually killing him requires that the PC: A: be unable or unwilling to talk their way out of it, B: Escalate the fight from non-lethal to lethal, and C: Be willing to pursue the fleeing man and stab him in the back while he is trying to escape.

That's three easy outs right there. Given that you can choose which player will get into this situation in the first place the odds of this actually going to trial are relatively miniscule.

And heck, you might still be able to plead self defense at the trial and be acquitted or cut some sort of deal with the magistrate.

dps
2016-03-19, 11:28 AM
You have what's known as a problem player. You need to make it abundantly clear to him that you are running a game where actions have consequences and that if that's not the kind of game he can have fun with, he can pack up his character sheet and move along.

Allowing one player to act like a spoiled child and ruin everyone else's fun because he can't be bothered to act reasonably is a failure for a DM. Don't worry about punishing his character in-game. This is an out of character, table problem and needs to be handled out of character. Once you've had the out of character talk, follow through with reasonable consequences to actions taken and brook no more of this BS "ruining my fun" nonsense.


I don't disagree with you about not letting 1 player ruin everyone else's fun, but I think you're really getting ahead of the situation by saying this is a problem player. We don't actually know that the player will react badly to there being consequences, even lethal ones, to his actions; we only know that the DM fears that the player will react badly. Granted, he knows the player and we don't, but OTOH, he's a rookie DM, and his concern may be based as much or more on not having to act from a position of authority before as it is on his knowledge of his player's character.

My advice to the DM is, first, to make it clear to all of your players that this is a setting in which violence isn't the answer to every problem, and that there can and will be serious consequences to the inappropriate use of violence, especially lethal acts. If none of your players want to play that type of game, run something else where they can just be murderhobos if they want, but if it's just the 1 guy who doesn't, explain to him that you're running a game that the majority of the group wants to play, and if he doesn't want to play that type of game, he's welcome to sit it out. And then, be firm about applying the consequences as appropriate.; don't back down just because you aren't used to being the DM. If the player, after it's been explained that this is a game in which just being a murderhobo isn't a good idea, still wants to be act like murderhobo, make his character take the consequences, and if the player gets mad about that and quits, let him. He doesn't want to be playing your game anyway, and that's fine. IMO, a DM shouldn't worry too much about losing a player because the player doesn't like the particular type or style of game being played, as long as the other players are on board with what's being played (if you're losing multiple players, that's another story).