Did I act right?

[bassix]

Hi everyone! This is my first post on this forum and I'm very happy to be part of this now. I used to read lots of forum posts for advice or ideas.

At the moment I'm hosting a campaign for a total of six players. The party has split in three groups, because of storywise reasons. The party that is involved in my problem consists of a Chaotic Good Ranger, a Chaotic Neutral Bard and a Chaotic Evil Warlock. Very interesting indeed.
Yesterday we had a devastating session for one of the player characters, and for multiple NPC's. The three players were busy clearing a dungeon, including a guy (Darrel) who the Warlock hired. Darrel was a member of the clan that gave the PC's shelter for the empire. They cleared the Dungeon and right before I end the session the warlock starts arguing with Darrel about the money. Darrel wants his fair share of money (120 gp) that he rightfully earned. The Warlock disagrees and offers less money and threathens him with a high intimidation check. As DM I rolled a 20 for Darrel and he is not impressed. Darrel threatens the Warlock by saying that he will tell of his breach of contract to the laird. Suddenly out of nothing the Warlock decides to kill Darrel by casting a 5th level blight on him, killing poor ol' Darrel instantly. In response to that the rest of the party turns on the Warlock, because they can't stand his killing anymore. A few days earlier the warlock had also been involved in the attack of a fellow-party member and of several innocents. THey defeat him and tie him up. They take him back to the laird who is devasted by the death of his second cousin and clan member. He gives him a fair trial in which the Castle-Cleric casts Zone of Truth on him. Warlock is sort of forced to tell the truth and has physcial evidence of his contract with Darrel on him. After that he was sentenced to death and after an epic execution scene the Warlock was killed.
Did I act right by sentencing the Warlock to death?

[NecroDancer]

Did the warlock mean to be kill happy? (Did it make sense for his character)

Is the person playing the warlock ok with this?

Was the warlocks killing ruining the game?

Did you give the warlock a chance to escape?

Are you going to bring the warlock back as an Eldritch Revenant and make him the most badass NPC ever?

[bassix]

The player was deliberately killing the NPC and was convinced it was in accordance to his character. I gave him a small chance to escape, but it wasn't to much avail. I rolled a d100 (50/50) to see if his patron would help him, but I rolled a 20. He also had the chance to defend himself during his trial. The player controlling the character think it sucks to lose his character, but he agrees with the way I acted and that his character had to account for his actions. I'm thinking about bringing him back haha!

[Herobizkit]

By my account, as long as the player was willingly going along with the story and you didn't go out of your own way to "screw him over" (which I don't think you did), yeah, the Chaotic Evil sum-beech got what was coming to him.

Precedent is now set: If you play an Evil character and are also a team antagonist, you're not going to last very long.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Were you right to have a legitimate authority execute the murderer? Yes, I'd say so.

The only thing I'd have done differently (assuming I'd allowed that party composition in the first place) is that I wouldn't have rolled against the intimidation check. I'd have set a DC, probably based on Darrel's Wisdom score. Thus, the PC would have won and Darrel would have backed down - a warlock who can blast you with Blight V is definitely scary enough! But, yeah, in my opinion d20 rolls are swingy enough without setting a random DC every time.

[Scathain]

Are you going to bring the warlock back as an Eldritch Revenant and make him the most badass NPC ever?

If you do this, then everything you and him both have done is WAY worth it.

[Anonymouswizard]

The player controlling the character think it sucks to lose his character, but he agrees with the way I acted and that his character had to account for his actions.

This is the most important piece of information in the entire story.

If this is true, it doesn't really matter what you did, you acted right. It doesn't matter if you didn't act correctly, as long as the group member affected by it have no problems with what you've done, you've acted correctly.

Does it suck to lose a character? Yes, but I believe character death should always be on the table. Not common, but possible, and it helps to think of it as a chance to being a surprise character into the story. It sounds like your player is reacting rather maturely to his character's death, which is the right way to do it (the wrong way is to commit suicide because it's your fault that Black Leaf died, do not take roleplaying advice from Jack Chick).

In the grand scheme of actions to take, should you have acted differently? Maybe. Nothing you did was wrong, I just would have personally done a few things differently. If the player agrees that the character should have had his just deserts then everything is as right as rain, even if I'd have delayed his execution by a day or two to allow him a chance to escape (sans his share of the loot, most of his money, and maybe a piece of equipment or two).

EDIT: to throw my copper pieces on the 'most badass revenant NPC ever' idea, it's awesome, but don't do it without the player's permission. If they're okay with it then awesome, it's time to add in all the dark magic you want, but if they don't then doing it behind their back is just going to be worse.

[DivisibleByZero]

First off, you didn't do it to him.
The rest of the party did it to him when they rightfully took him prisoner.
He was acting his character, they were acting thiers, and you followed it to its only logical conclusion.
He understands this apparently, so you're all good.

[Gryndle]

I think you and the other two players handles things very well. According to my group I am very permissible when I DM and a cooperative team player. But even I have my limits and one of those is people writing Chaotic Evil on heir character sheet and using it as an excuse to be a jerk.

unless the entire party is playing a group of jerks. which my group currently is.. its an interesting twist playing through HotDQ and Rise of Tiamat as an all evil a-hole party.

[Laserlight]

Sounds reasonable to me.

This sort of thing is why, during the character design session of my games, I tell people not to play CE characters; "that's what my character would do" will usually get that character killed or imprisoned.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Assuming everyone was OK with evil characters to begin with...

YES! You handled this perfectly. He murdered an innocent man in cold blood to avoid paying him for services rendered.

The death penalty sounds about right for that.

Extra bonus irony points for a Warlock breaching a contract. :wink:

[Addaran]

You acted well. If there's (lethal) disagreement between the team members, it's obligatory that someone will lose a character (or have to make a new one after the old one ran away). Unless you plan to run two games in parallel.

The warlock already attacked the team (and NPCs) and they made it clear they didn't like that, by beating and tying him up. So he had is chance and he comes at it again.

You could have given more chance for the warlock to escape, but that's only for the player to enjoy knowing his character survived, he'd still have to change character for the next session.


And it do make some senses that Darrel wasn't too scared of the warlock. He got hired to help the team, so was also fighting dangerous monsters that were too much for the warlock and his team! If level 9 characters need help, they probably won't hire lvl 1. Even if they try, the poor lvl 1 will probably run away when a hellhound, a bullet or an hydra pops out.

[Kane0]

Yeah, sounds alright as long as the players are cool with it.

I mean, just look at what could happen between party members in Baldur's Gate. Sometimes inter-party conflict can be awesome RP and great fun.

[NecroDancer]

By the way what archtype was the warlock? Feind? GoO? Fey?

Did he have s book? A blade? A familiar?

[lordarkness]

That's a pretty awesome series of events.

It makes for a great story in particular because everyone contributed to the outcome (the DM, the player in question, and the other players), which is how it should be.

CE characters are difficult to have in a campaign because if you play them right this kind of result is inevitable. Player be warned.

And I also think that a revenant would be an awesome consequence of these events. I would probably make that their next villain, or least a rival. Getting player permission is a good suggestion.

[RumoCrytuf]

The player was deliberately killing the NPC and was convinced it was in accordance to his character. I gave him a small chance to escape, but it wasn't to much avail. I rolled a d100 (50/50) to see if his patron would help him, but I rolled a 20. He also had the chance to defend himself during his trial. The player controlling the character think it sucks to lose his character, but he agrees with the way I acted and that his character had to account for his actions. I'm thinking about bringing him back haha!

I smell a sidequest to the Eldritch Planes brewing :D

[Ruslan]

You acted reasonably. The world does not always contort around the PCs just because they're PCs. Kill a laird's cousin, suffer a punishment.

[Plaguescarred]

Not only you acted right i truly believe these makes a more memorable campaign with heavy consequences as these.

They may even still talk about this in moments from now.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not only you acted right i truly believe these makes a more memorable campaign with heavy consequences as these.

They may even still talk about this in moments from now.

Agreed.
I've had many upon many characters die over the past 25 years or so. One of them s pretty much exactly as described above, and the only one more memorable than that one was when I pulled a Hodor (before Hodor was even a thing) so that my character's sister (and the rest of the party) could escape. I traded my life for hers (theirs).
My hanging was a close second.

[Plaguescarred]

Agreed.
I've had many upon many characters die over the past 25 years or so. One of them s pretty much exactly as described above, and the only one more memorable than that one was when I pulled a Hodor (before Hodor was even a thing) so that my character's sister (and the rest of the party) could escape. I traded my life for hers (theirs).
My hanging was a close second.We start to agree too much :smallbiggrin:

I had a couple of self sacrifice too over 25+ years of gaming and always find that they're some of the most memorable death something virtuous about it!

[NecroDancer]

I fave the feeling that my characters self sacrifice will be a literal blaze of glory that might accidentally kill a few of my party member also

[Sigreid]

That's a pretty awesome series of events.

It makes for a great story in particular because everyone contributed to the outcome (the DM, the player in question, and the other players), which is how it should be.

CE characters are difficult to have in a campaign because if you play them right this kind of result is inevitable. Player be warned.

And I also think that a revenant would be an awesome consequence of these events. I would probably make that their next villain, or least a rival. Getting player permission is a good suggestion.

I don't know. CE doesn't have to mean stupid. It's perfectly possible to play a CE character that is loyal to his friends (to a point) as they are a reliable power source and only lets his freak flag fly when no one is watching/he can get away from it. You just have to follow the golden rule...No live witnesses.

[Sabeta]

Player steals from a merchant, and kills him.
Loots the room, finds letters from home.
"We love you daddy."
"Hun, I know the shop has had some hard times lately, so I packed your favorite lunch. Good luck sweety."
"Son, just wanted you to know I'm proud if you for sticking with the shop during these troubling times. Here's a bit of cash to make it through the month"
Acquired one legendary arrow artifact. Too awesome to use.
Player cries IRL and leaves the game for the day.

Skip forward a few weeks, and the player gets updated by assassins. We track him all the way to water deep. Tied to a stake, and across from him is a women, black cloak billowing in the wind. We work out that it's the merchants wife seeking retribution. She sold the shop to hire the assassins to bring him in, and none of us move to interrupt because we're LG and he confessed to murder. She draws back her bow, and we realize it's been knocked with the legendary artifact arrow.

She shoots true, the player is hit in the heart, and the arrow implodes into a black hole which consumes him.

TlDR, I would say you did good, TC.

[RumoCrytuf]

She shoots true, the player is hit in the heart, and the arrow implodes into a black hole which consumes him.

TlDR, I would say you did good, TC.


D&D: Breaking the laws of physics since 1974 :P