How to enforce consequence for unnecessary killing?

[NiklasWB]

Hey guys,

In a week I'm going to resume DMing a campaign after a few months hiatus. The players will now be getting back to town after a semi-long dungeon crawl. The thing is that they were chased out of the town having been wrongfully accused of theft, and the town watch was send after them to bring them in to face justice. Now here's when things went south.

I described about 30 watchmen giving chase, and the players got the hint and decided to flee instead of fighting. Then for flavor I decided to describe that about 6-8 of the watchmen were scouts on horseback and were moving about 5 minutes ahead of the rest of the watch. One player (out of four), decided that he wanted to fight these scouts... for no apparent reason other than (my character would to it). The other players wanted to continue fleeing and evade the watch (which was also what I had counted on). After having a rather heated in- and out of character argument they all decided to fight anyway simply because they didn't want to leave the one that wanted to fight.

And fight they did. I made the fight pretty hard (to sort of teach them a lesson), but I fudged a few rolls mainly because I didn't want the players who had wanted to flee to lose their characters just because one of them wanted to fight. In the end, the players won the fight, killed the scouts (even after I gave them a hint that they would knock them out if they wanted) and took their horses. They then fled and evaded the rest of the watch and continued to their dungeon crawl.

My predicament is how to deal with this when they return to town. They story needs for them to be able to enter town and get their reward etc, but at the same time I don't want to hand-wave what is essentially murder of innocent and good men just doing their job.

How would you guys handle this?

I'm sure one of the players with high CHA will try to use Deception to try to say that it wasn't them who killed the scouts, but I kind of don't feel like I should let them off the hook on this one. They may also argue that it was self-defense, which isn't true. They are all of neutral or chaotic good or lawful neutral alignment, however they sometimes roleplay as chaotic neutral (especially when it comes to money or killing... so basically Murder-Hobos).

One thing I thought of was to give them a pardon because they essentially saved the town, but deduct a rather large sum from their reward (say 500-700 gold off of 2000 total), and say that that money will go to supporting the widows and orphans of the men they killed.

What do you guys think I should do?

[Knaight]

My predicament is how to deal with this when they return to town. They story needs for them to be able to enter town and get their reward etc, but at the same time I don't want to hand-wave what is essentially murder of innocent and good men just doing their job.

Does it though? An attempt to arrest them on site makes plenty of sense, and the person in the town may no longer be inclined to give them any reward, instead funneling that money elsewhere. Bounty hunters and the like tend to work.

[Markoff Chainey]

I often construct situations like those descirbed and even give players (!) short term in-game incentives to kill innocents or commit crimes, while their player characters would act otherwise. - And when faced with evil characters, I do the opposite.

If you play like that, your players will realize that you are setting up traps for them and will start to actually play their characters. This only works, though, when you punish "wrong" (= inconsistent) and reward "right" (= consistent) behaviour.

As you say, when you hand-wave it through, you create a mess and it will turn into a murder-hobo game. (Which can be fun for a while, but only when everybody on the table including yourself is consent with that)

In the case you described I would make them pay and I would do something like this...

So the watch they killed was almost as strong as the party and the party basically saved the whole city... this sounds to me as if the guys from that watch were not just some stupid henchmen, but played a critical role for the security in the town. With them gone, a lot could have changed within the city until their return... The party expects a reward, right? Well, I could imagine that now a void in power existed, a criminal gang throw out the former major, took over the rest of the watch, because all the good guys are either dead or corrupted. Now the people live in fear and terror. The new city major is a criminal and very happy about all the glimmering new shiny items the "heroes" were expected to get. He installed many of his thugs as a new city watch. When the heroes return, they are not allowed into town and should they persist, they will be arrested. When they make contact to civilians and sneak around, they will learn what happened.

I would introduce a new quest where they have to find the old major (in the city prison? or he fled somewhere?), save him and have to throw over the new one. - All to gain the same reward that they would have gotten anyways if the would not have attacked the guys from the watch...

Should it go horribly wrong (e.g. players siding with the criminals, or taking over the town for themselves, although they are lawful or good...) I would let them face an official army that wipes out this puny resistance force, restores order and peace and let them roll new characters afterwards...

[JellyPooga]

The party were wrongfully accused of theft.

They are now rightfully guilty of resisting arrest and the murder of several watch officers.

The Powers-That-Be should probably be on the "you'll be lucky to get a pardon" side of the fence as far as rewards go, regardless of them saving the town. Town Saviours don't generally get themselves into situations where killing guards is a good idea; they're not exactly setting themselves up as Heroes anymore and are spiraling down the path of desperate criminals just out for themselves. Labels such as "undesirables", "ruffians", "outsiders" and much worse should probably be used liberally in their presence. If they expect a reward and start getting uppity about not getting one, a raised eyebrow at the right time is a powerful tool.

If they want to go back and stay in town (without getting arrested), liberal use of bribery is probably in order, which would likely involve contacting the less salubrious elements (thieves guild, if there is one, dodgy nobles, a greedy merchant-prince perhaps, etc.). Bribing the Watch is probably right out; as corrupt as some watchmen might be, Cops generally don't like Cop-Killers; there's probably a lot of resentment heading the PC's way from that department.

In short, the PC's have some new friends and some new enemies;
Friends: Thieves, (other) Murderers, Corrupt City Officials
Enemies: The-Powers-That-Be, the Watch, the Family of the men they murdered.

Be sure to welcome them to the Dark-Side of roleplaying.

[Spore]

One thing I thought of was to give them a pardon because they essentially saved the town, but deduct a rather large sum from their reward (say 500-700 gold off of 2000 total), and say that that money will go to supporting the widows and orphans of the men they killed.

What do you guys think I should do?

They get NOTHING.

"You either get your reward and have to face justice for killing officers on our sovereign land. Or you leave it be, not face judgment and be banned from our land for life time. And you don't want to face a fair trial, trust me on that."

If they really want a fair trial, you could make a trial (diplomacy checks aka arguing) and if they succeed telling you their version, their punishment might entail removing a gnoll camp close to the town for no embursement. (You should then jack up the difficulty of those encounters quite a bit)

After all my DM accused my rogue - rightfully - of theft in return for the local pawn shop forging my debenture for 5000 gold by a tenfold (he paid 500 gold for an ancient artifact map and wants 5000 gold to buy ). I might have also damaged city property and the shop by releasing a fire elemental trap.

The Paladin, along with his reputation and diplomacy skills forced the shopkeep to resell me the map for 500 gold and repair any damage done by the fire elemental as the trap was installed without the agreement of the council (and a fire elemental being particularly dangerous in an arid region).

[Wymmerdann]

Have the instigator character hanged and his entire share of the reward/his equipment sold off to pay the widows.

The rest of the party might offer to pay off some weregeld to spare his life [his share of the reward+equipment+50%] and be either collectively banished from the town, or receive a "bad reputation" penalty to all purchases of around 25%, if they're narratively required to remain in the town.

Either of these options give the party a way forward despite the fact that they've undertaken seriously evil acts.

Slap on the wrist punishments tend to encourage this behaviour at the table, which is fine if you want to play a murderhobo or villainous campaign, but undercuts just about any other narrative that you, as a GM, are trying to weave.

[Another option might be to imprison the instigator character as a good behaviour bond on the rest of the party, which could effectively write him out of the story for a short while, but how effective that would be will depend on the dynamic at the table].

[Regitnui]

No quest reward. XP from guards deducted from XP earned (to a minimum of flat level). All players immediately arrested, kept in separate cells. Equipment confiscated, to be sold later.

If the PCs go through with trial, hard labour or imprisonment are the best options. The latter is, in effect, a game over. Hard labour might be better, but i'm not sure what the best mechanical interpretation is.

The PCs can plea deal, in which case you give them guards' uniforms and equipment, which is one of the base equipment packages from the PHB or just one weapon each, armour and basic spell components. They are then sent on a quest useful to the town. They don't keep the loot, and XP is halved.

Too harsh?

[Blue Lantern]

No quest reward. XP from guards deducted from XP earned (to a minimum of flat level). All players immediately arrested, kept in separate cells. Equipment confiscated, to be sold later.

If the PCs go through with trial, hard labour or imprisonment are the best options. The latter is, in effect, a game over. Hard labour might be better, but i'm not sure what the best mechanical interpretation is.

The PCs can plea deal, in which case you give them guards' uniforms and equipment, which is one of the base equipment packages from the PHB or just one weapon each, armour and basic spell components. They are then sent on a quest useful to the town. They don't keep the loot, and XP is halved.

Too harsh?

I disagree with the XP penality, enforcing realistic consequences within the word is fine, giving mechanical penalties because they are not doing things in the way you like is not, if there is a problem of clashing playstiles it is better discuss those things out of the game than start an arms race in game.

[Jarlhen]

If they returned to the town I fail to see how on earth they'd not be put on trial for murder and subsequently executed. I mean it's a small town, not a major city. Even if you convince the mayor to do you a solid he can't. He sees his constituents every single day. The watch were probably friends of his, grown up and raised in town, the sons and daughters of the inhabitants. And your players murdered them. As far as I'm concerned they can never come near that village again, they will have a fat bounty on their heads, and they will have to leave the country. THEY MURDERED 8 PEOPLE! Remember that. A useful quest doesn't make up for murdering a group of people doing their jobs. It simply doesn't. You need extreme wealth and influences to get away with that, and I suspect they have none of that.

Also, you shouldn't have fudged rolls. Consequences is everything. You essentially told them it's fine to behave this way. As far as I'm concerned you have to show them the consequences of their actions now since you let them get away with murder previously.

[Regitnui]

I disagree with the XP penality, enforcing realistic consequences within the word is fine, giving mechanical penalties because they are not doing things in the way you like is not, if there is a problem of clashing playstiles it is better discuss those things out of the game than start an arms race in game.

I wouldn't deny them XP, just reduce the costs. The XP-less quest might be a but harsh, but negative XP when playing severely against alignment isn't unprecedented.

[smcmike]

If I were playing in this campaign, there is no way I'd go back to this town. Are you crazy?! How is the plot pulling them back there, exactly? Can you find a way to advance your plot without requiring they return to the scene of their crimes?

Also, as an aside, I always find the "city watch" idea to be hilarious. How big is this town, with 30 city watchmen available to chase a small group of thieves?

As a general rule, I think it's fair to expect that players might decide to fight when presented with a group of armed hostiles, at least when the odds don't appear insurmountable. It might not have been reasonable to kill the scouts, but it wasn't wildly outside of reason either - the players didn't want to be captured, and were being chased by armed men intent on capturing them. That's the choice you gave them. As DM, you should avoid giving the players choices that will cause total crisis in your narrative.

[BW022]

Sorry, you need to think of what would happen in the real world...

Small town which generally doesn't have any unusual crime. A group of outsider thieves are discovered, but flee. The police go looking for them. One group on horseback is found later that day murder by weapons and thieves get away.

There is no way in heck they town isn't going to assume that the PCs killed did this. Further, given the resources of a town, no reason they won't have some way of connecting the PCs to this. Anyone will survival can likely track the PCs and horses. Medicine checks can determine the weapons used to kill the horsemen. Even minor spells can determine that it was the PCs who did this -- speak with animals (on the horses), speak with dead, etc.

It is likely the murder of guards is going to put some serious effort on part of the town to track down the PCs. Rewards, descriptions, wanted posters, etc. would be all over town. They would likely hire some folks to try scrying or some bounty hunters to track down the PCs. A small down would almost certainly ask for aid from their lord, leader, province, country, etc. they are in and pass around wanted posters. Players arrive in town are almost certain to find posters plastered around town offering a major reward for them. Family members of the guard may also offer personal rewards. Penalty in any sane world is death. It wasn't the PCs. Deception or persuasion doesn't remove common sense. It is also trivial to disprove. Simply separate the party and question them separately under a zone of truth spell.

As a DM...

I would examine the alignments of the PCs. In 5E it is hard to kill people. After the horsemen dropped, any good PC should have stabilized them and left them tied up. Even if sloppy... only a few would fail their three con checks and actually die. If the PCs actually killed them or left dying people to bleed to death... I would be looking moving alignments one step towards evil, clerics, druids, and paladins having god issues, etc.

I would ask for wisdom checks. Anyone making a DC 5 would know that the murder of multiple guards is almost certain to mean any hope of a reward is off. Any reward is almost certain to have been moved to bounties and rewards on the heads of the PCs. Given the town knows the PCs... this is almost certain to mean rewards, wanted posters, etc. both in town and the surrounding county/province. Most likely the mayor has asked for aid from the local ruler/lord, and a sheriff or bounty hunters have been assigned. PCs showing up in town are almost certain to be executed by morning. I would then ask for various intelligence checks for ways out of the county/province/area which avoid population centers.

[Democratus]

And fight they did. I made the fight pretty hard (to sort of teach them a lesson), but I fudged a few rolls mainly because I didn't want the players who had wanted to flee to lose their characters just because one of them wanted to fight.

Seems like a bit of a mixed message. Either you have a hard and fair fight or you fudge. Doing both means you did neither.

The DM shouldn't be in the business of "teaching the players a lesson". Just let the story keep going logically from what they do.

The players should be outlaws in that town. If they return they will be tried and punished for multiple murders of deputized citizens.

They should flee, skip the money reward, and perhaps several levels later have a mercenary group finally find them after being paid by a small town to bring them to justice.

[Chambers]

They get NOTHING.

"You either get your reward and have to face justice for killing officers on our sovereign land. Or you leave it be, not face judgment and be banned from our land for life time. And you don't want to face a fair trial, trust me on that."

This. Characters don't get to murder innocent people and then get rewarded. No cash reward, exiled from the land upon pain of death.

[Slipperychicken]

Here's what I see happening:


Town leader declares the PCs outlaws, might get his lord to do the same. That means they're not protected by the town's laws, and it's okay for people to do whatever they want to the PCs without fear of repercussion. It might even be illegal to feed and do business with them, depending on how it works. If they go far enough away it probably won't matter unless they're famous crooks. Not everyone follows the laws or will necessarily recognize them, of course.

Someone posts a bounty on the PCs, says they're runaway thieves and killers. Bounty hunters might come for them, although killing enough of them means most of them would be scared off, so only the baddest and most cunning would make further attempts. After enough bounty hunters get killed, someone might call in a troupe of knights and men-at-arms to take them down... or they give up and just let the PCs exist as outlaws, hoping a hero rises to beat them someday.

If they're really infamous and visit a place allied to the town or its lord, those guys might recognize the PCs and entrap them. Maybe inviting them to the castle and locking them between some portcullises or something like that. If the PCs are feared enough, they might just try to not let them into the town.

No such thing as a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, none of those concepts exist. If they get caught, then they're brought before a lord and his court. The lord or his right-hand-man say something about justice or order, then have the PCs executed. If they get caught and are recognized as outlaws, they just kill them on the spot, bring the heads back to town, and set them on pikes to spook the next would-be thieves.



If the blood-price/weregeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild) exists in your setting, the players might be able to clear their names by paying blood-price for however many people and horses they killed, as well as damages for property incurred, which includes any stuff they stole from their dead bodies. It's a monetary fine paid by killers, usually paid to victim's families, as a way to smooth over killings and end feuds. The price varies by social class (a king's weregeld is enormous, a beggar's is very small), and I'm sure that town watchmen would have a higher one than normal people.

[smcmike]

No such thing as a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, none of those concepts exist. If they get caught, then they're brought before a lord and his court. The lord or his right-hand-man say something about justice or order, then have the PCs executed. If they get caught and are recognized as outlaws, they just kill them on the spot, bring the heads back to town, and set them on pikes to spook the next would-be thieves.

I agree with all of your points, but I think this last point deserves highlighting, for the purpose of evaluating how the characters got into this position: without the availability of a fair trial, falsely accusing the players and then chasing them down with armed men is setting them up to fight those men. Allowing oneself to be captured in a society with capricious and deadly standards of justice is not a good choice.

Unless you are prepared for your players to become outlaws, don't have the forces of law and order initiate armed conflict with them.

[Jamesps]

Hey guys,


How would you guys handle this?

I'm sure one of the players with high CHA will try to use Deception to try to say that it wasn't them who killed the scouts, but I kind of don't feel like I should let them off the hook on this one. They may also argue that it was self-defense, which isn't true. They are all of neutral or chaotic good or lawful neutral alignment, however they sometimes roleplay as chaotic neutral (especially when it comes to money or killing... so basically Murder-Hobos).


What do you guys think I should do?

Mini adventure courtroom sequence! Don't let them get out of it with a single deception roll, make them throw together and elaborate scheme to "prove" their innocence.

[Slipperychicken]

Mini adventure courtroom sequence! Don't let them get out of it with a single deception roll, make them throw together and elaborate scheme to "prove" their innocence.

Or, if your campaign setting happens to be awesome, give them trial-by-combat. Each one has to fight a champion, on equal terms (same equipment, no buffs, no magic), and any PCs who win get to live. Victorious PCs still have to pay blood-price for people they obviously killed, however.

[RickAllison]

Mini adventure courtroom sequence! Don't let them get out of it with a single deception roll, make them throw together and elaborate scheme to "prove" their innocence.

Now I am stuck imagining the party using their murderhoboism to prove they aren't murderhobos! They could find the "true" killers, a tribe of kobolds org bolls nearby who massacred the scouts!

[Fighting_Ferret]

Or, if your campaign setting happens to be awesome, give them trial-by-combat. Each one has to fight a champion, on equal terms (same equipment, no buffs, no magic), and any PCs who win get to live. Victorious PCs still have to pay blood-price for people they obviously killed, however.

"I choose violence!"

Seriously, trial by combat is a bit ridiculous, especially in a world where the gods exist unquestionably, as do actual living embodiment of good and justice. A cleric with zone of truth could take care of this pretty quickly. The PCs would most likely be avoided by most of the town if they were able to single handedly deal with 1/5 of the town's militia/guardsmen. They could basically claim their reward on threat of violence... the point being they want to be noble heroes...not dastardly villains.

If the town is able to, they might try to take the PCs prisoner, but the likely result there is a quick trial and the PCs being executed. It's not likely that the town's leaders would take anything a group of murdering thieves have to say into account, especially when the PCs come riding in on the scout's horses, or at the very least are guilty of running away from both crimes (innocent or not). If you let the players somehow escape their fates, then might I suggest that the PCs retire those characters for your use as future villains in the same story and create a new party, which can later track down and bring the old party members to justice.

[krugaan]

Mini adventure courtroom sequence! Don't let them get out of it with a single deception roll, make them throw together and elaborate scheme to "prove" their innocence.

"OBJECTION!"

/dramaticfingerpoint

/PhoenixWright

[N810]

They get their reward... but the official is not happy with them, (but its a trap)
as they are then kicked out of town tarred and feathered. (villagers mob)
also they now have a bounty on their heads. (mayor changes his mind)
so expect bounty hunters to randomly attack them at unexpected times.

[JeffreyGator]

If 1/5 of the readily available city watch was a hard fight for the PCs, they didn't save the town. They did a small contract job that could easily have been handled by 10-15 of the city watch with probably significantly less cost to the town in terms of reward or loss of life to watchmen.

They could potentially sneak into town to learn from the official that contracted them that they weren't going to be paid and are lucky that he isn't turning them in and that they should move on to the next town.

It might depend OOC on how much investment you put into the town as a DM whether or not you want them completely exiled or not.

Typically even questions of killing vs arresting bad guys of civilized races can call good or lawful alignments into question.

I suspect that 3/4 of the players/pcs will police the 1 player/pc pretty well if there are decent consequences in terms of no reward/exile.

[NiklasWB]

Wow, you guys really don't mess around...

I kind of agree with most of your points, but I also feel that since this is a RPG and some form of escapism, I shouldn't punish they players so much so that their characters are forever outlaws and can basically never return to this area. That would just make everyone unhappy, in and out of character. I don't think they (or the instigator player) really understood that there would be consequences... He just wanted to fight something.

I guess I just feel that I would be punishing ALL the players for very reluctantly helping that one player who just wanted to fight. It was a clear case of not doing what the characters wanted to do just to oblige their out of character friend. I think most of us can relate to that. Outlawing/executing the characters for murder may be the most realistic thing to do, but I also feel it would be wrong of me as a DM to punish them that severely when they are still learning the ropes of RP. Most of them have never played a non-computer game RPG before and I figure they thought it was like a video game and that they HAD to kill everything I (even remotely) threw their way simply to get xp.

The things that is driving the players back to the town even after all that has happened is: (A) they have an NPC friend that was captured as they escpated the town and they want to set him free, (B) the party now has about 50 refugees that they rescued in the dungeon crawl that needs to get back to the town, (C) the duke of the town in posessed in some way or form, and they feel that they need to help the town get rid of the possessing entity.

This was supposed to be the heroic conclusion of this first story arc, and executing or outlawing the players would just put the story to a grinding and frustrating halt.

So I feel that I need a way to get around this that doesn't require execution or outlawry. Any suggestions?

One idea I had was to allow them to enter the town with all the refugees, and that the duke would grant them an audience because of this. The posessed duke would then try to kill them. If they survive they may be able to, with some good persuasion, convince the new rules that despite killing the watchmen, the services they had previously and currently done to the town would allow them to leave without standing trial, leaving any potential reward behind as reparations for the murders. Would require some finess, but could work.

Another idea would be to say that the scouts they killed actually survived because the rest of the watchmen cought up and stabilised them (the players left as soon as the last man was downed and didn't check the bodies). This would be a cop out from my side and would most likely allow the players to think that they can continue killing innocents from time to time, but it would allow the story I had in mind to unfold more according to plan. Not optimal, but may progress things more smoothly.

[Chambers]

*puts on grumpypants*

If you coddle them now they'll never learn. Let them realize that actions have consequences, don't pull any punches.

[Slipperychicken]

So I feel that I need a way to get around this that doesn't require execution or outlawry. Any suggestions?

One idea I had was to allow them to enter the town with all the refugees, and that the duke would grant them an audience because of this. The posessed duke would then try to kill them. If they survive they may be able to, with some good persuasion, convince the new rules that despite killing the watchmen, the services they had previously and currently done to the town would allow them to leave without standing trial, leaving any potential reward behind as reparations for the murders. Would require some finess, but could work.

Another idea would be to say that the scouts they killed actually survived because the rest of the watchmen cought up and stabilised them (the players left as soon as the last man was downed and didn't check the bodies). This would be a cop out from my side and would most likely allow the players to think that they can continue killing innocents from time to time, but it would allow the story I had in mind to unfold more according to plan. Not optimal, but may progress things more smoothly.

I'm still maintaining my suggestion that they pay weregeld for all the guards, the thing they're accused of stealing, and any other damages. It's a real consequence because it costs a bunch of money (one of the few things a murderhobo cares about), it doesn't bog down the session with a mock-trial, and doesn't totally shut the story down either. Someone can come deliver a summons for them: they can appear in court to pay the fine, or they become outlaws until they do pay it.

[N810]

oh, didn't realize they had also did some good for the town,
I suppose you could blame some of this mess on the possessed mayor. :smallconfused:

[NiklasWB]

oh, didn't realize they had also did some good for the town,
I suppose you could blame some of this mess on the possessed mayor. :smallconfused:

They basically stopped a lizardman tribe sacking the village, and then allowed trade to resume in the city after a lockdown of the river it sits on, so yeah, they have done alot of good beforehand and should (if not for the unfortunate watchmen killing) be hailed as heroes of the town after the storyarc is over.

That is also part of the problem... I feel like I would be taking away all their effort that they have fought for for months (in real life)j ust because one of the players felt he wanted to swing his new maul around at one time.

[N810]

Think I would go with "the scouts survived" story.
and have the party pay a fine for the assault.
and possibly have the guards not like them very much.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Hey guys,

In a week I'm going to resume DMing a campaign after a few months hiatus. The players will now be getting back to town after a semi-long dungeon crawl. The thing is that they were chased out of the town having been wrongfully accused of theft, and the town watch was send after them to bring them in to face justice. Now here's when things went south.

I described about 30 watchmen giving chase, and the players got the hint and decided to flee instead of fighting. Then for flavor I decided to describe that about 6-8 of the watchmen were scouts on horseback and were moving about 5 minutes ahead of the rest of the watch. One player (out of four), decided that he wanted to fight these scouts... for no apparent reason other than (my character would to it). The other players wanted to continue fleeing and evade the watch (which was also what I had counted on). After having a rather heated in- and out of character argument they all decided to fight anyway simply because they didn't want to leave the one that wanted to fight.

And fight they did. I made the fight pretty hard (to sort of teach them a lesson), but I fudged a few rolls mainly because I didn't want the players who had wanted to flee to lose their characters just because one of them wanted to fight. In the end, the players won the fight, killed the scouts (even after I gave them a hint that they would knock them out if they wanted) and took their horses. They then fled and evaded the rest of the watch and continued to their dungeon crawl.

My predicament is how to deal with this when they return to town. They story needs for them to be able to enter town and get their reward etc, but at the same time I don't want to hand-wave what is essentially murder of innocent and good men just doing their job.

How would you guys handle this?

I'm sure one of the players with high CHA will try to use Deception to try to say that it wasn't them who killed the scouts, but I kind of don't feel like I should let them off the hook on this one. They may also argue that it was self-defense, which isn't true. They are all of neutral or chaotic good or lawful neutral alignment, however they sometimes roleplay as chaotic neutral (especially when it comes to money or killing... so basically Murder-Hobos).

One thing I thought of was to give them a pardon because they essentially saved the town, but deduct a rather large sum from their reward (say 500-700 gold off of 2000 total), and say that that money will go to supporting the widows and orphans of the men they killed.

What do you guys think I should do?

Your PCs are indeed a band of murderous outlaws and should be treated as such in your campaign until they've managed to atone for their evil ways. If that's not their idea of a good time, they shouldn't have committed murder.

[JellyPooga]

(C) the duke of the town in possessed in some way or form

This...this is an important point and changes a lot.

Being outlawed by an authority they fully intend on overthrowing is just plot, rather than a spanner in the works. Go ahead and outlaw them. When the Duke is dealt with and the new powers-that-be recognise the deeds of the PC's, they can claim self-defence the the charges dropped and/or mitigated; the Watchmen were sent after the PC's on the orders of a malevolent authority. Now that authority is no longer in a position of power, the actions of the PC's under the circumstances can be...understood. Somewhat. Recompense for the deed should probably be in order; a fine or community service is probably what it will come to; jail-time or a death-sentence for the conquering heroes is hardly appropriate.

Unless, of course, the PC's get kill-happy in their quest to "save" the town; i.e. they kill the guards going in, kill the Duke and rob his household...then they probably don't have much of a defence and should have to deal with some harsh fallout for lacking subtlety.

Encourage the PC's to think less directly. They're outlaws on the Dukes orders; who knows about the Duke? Are they willing to help the PC's infiltrate his mansion and deal with the possessing force? What other elements in town might be willing to help for a price? What tasks will the PC's have to do to earn the trust of said elements? Perhaps something that in itself is criminal, potentially implicating them on different charges than the ones they are answering for now. Can the civilians they saved help in any way or are they better off staying clear of the town for the time being? Would it be in the PC's interest to found a new town/village altogether with these refugees from the Dukes reign?

[Spacehamster]

Have them run out of town and hunted by guards if they return and later they could be hunted by another group of adventurers or so. :)

[Fighting_Ferret]

If you don't want them to deal with consequences of killing the guardsmen, you are going to have to retro-actively rule that those guardsmen were not in fact killed. Even one of them being killed would result in the trial/execution scenario. Without murder... your PCs are still wanted for theft (of which they are innocent) horse theft (of which they are guilty) resisting the proper authority (also guilty), and assaulting the Duke's men at arms (guilty as charged). Maybe only one guardsman was killed by the player that wanted to fight... and that character will get an ongoing in-character reminder of what they did... I'm reminded of the character Wayne in Mistborn: Wax and Wayne.

With that list of crimes, you might be looking at restitution being suitable. It would also depend on how the town views the Duke. The Duke is going to be furious, regardless. But if the town doesn't hold the Duke in high esteem, they may be willing to embrace the PCs for killing the lizzardmen and returning the prisoners/refugees, some of which might be relatives of those in the town. Perhaps then the PCs get the contact they need to begin the storyline on "helping" the Duke with his problem(s).

[Hooligan]

Trial by combat baby!

[gfishfunk]

Ideas in preferential order:

1. Good-Aligned Clerics / Paladins begin failing at spells for no apparent reason. All good-aligned characters suffer 1 level of exhaustion AFTER their long rest due to being unable to sleep at night at the realization that they killed innocent people.
2. Give them a chance to bluff their way out, but put so high of a difficulty level that they cannot do it.
3. Even if pardoned, the reward money is gone, paid to the families of the slain guards.
4. If you let the players bluff out of it scott-free, their next adventure is to apprehend (alive) those responsible for killing the guards to bring those people in for questioning and justice.
5. Spray bottle. Every time a good-aligned character does something blatantly evil, spray them and say slowly "No. Bad PC."

[LordVonDerp]

Sorry, you need to think of what would happen in the real world...



As a DM...

I would examine the alignments of the PCs. In 5E it is hard to kill people. After the horsemen dropped, any good PC should have stabilized them and left them tied up. Even if sloppy... only a few would fail their three con checks and actually die. If the PCs actually killed them or left dying people to bleed to death... I would be looking moving alignments one step towards evil, clerics, druids, and paladins having god issues, etc.


NPCs don't get death saves. And corrupt guards hardly deserve mercy.

[Regitnui]

Well, they're outlawed now. At the very least, they're getting an unfriendly reaction in town. This is how I see it going;

They're barred from entering the town, though the guard is willing to let them wait outside the gate instead of chasing them off. The mayor meets them in the morning to discuss the refugees, either standing atop the wall or outside the gate, backed up by guards. The refugees are likely allowed into town, but it is made abundantly clear the PCs are not welcome.

This leaves us with plot; the party has Friendly now-repatriated refugees within the town, but the authorities therein will be Unfriendly or Hostile. The trick then for the PCs is to rid the mayor of the possessing entity without getting caught. The refugees may help them, but it's now more down to backgrounds and roleplaying than roll play and class features.

[ChelseaNH]

I guess I just feel that I would be punishing ALL the players for very reluctantly helping that one player who just wanted to fight.

Consequences are the price of free will. It is very useful for people to learn to say no to bad ideas, no matter how vociferously an idiot asks for help.

At this point, they've already demonstrated that you can't count on them doing what you expect. You can come up with ideas for how you'd like to resolve this, but there's no guarantee they're going to go along with your plans. So as far as I can tell, your big decision is whether you tip them off that consequences are impending. Are wanted posters stuck to trees along the road to town? Or do they walk into town all unknowing and get surprised?


And corrupt guards hardly deserve mercy.

What corrupt guards?

[smcmike]

What corrupt guards?

This is actually another possible resolution to the problem - reveal that the guards were, in fact, evil minions of the evil Duke, and thereby provide post-hoc justification for the killing. If they had allowed themselves to be captured, they would have been executed.

This is the most pro-player way to go, but of course it risks all sorts of murdehoboism in the future. It also doesn't change much about the challenges they face - the evil guard would still be planning to execute them as murderers.

[JellyPooga]

This is actually another possible resolution to the problem - reveal that the guards were, in fact, evil minions of the evil Duke

Yeah, don't do this. As smcmike says, this will probably only reinforce the PC's murderhobo attitude. You want to discourage this CRPG outlook as much as possible. Let them deal with the consequences of their actions, but wrangle the plot to give the PC's some leeway based on the guard acting on orders, etc.

[RickAllison]

So the party has an abundance of low-caste but grateful people, with an antagonizing authority. This is the perfect opportunity for your PCs to RP through trying to talk their way out of trouble. Remember, the guards don't need to be evil, the PCs need to be able to persuade others that the guards were evil.

[Malifice]

Hey guys,

In a week I'm going to resume DMing a campaign after a few months hiatus. The players will now be getting back to town after a semi-long dungeon crawl. The thing is that they were chased out of the town having been wrongfully accused of theft, and the town watch was send after them to bring them in to face justice. Now here's when things went south.

I described about 30 watchmen giving chase, and the players got the hint and decided to flee instead of fighting. Then for flavor I decided to describe that about 6-8 of the watchmen were scouts on horseback and were moving about 5 minutes ahead of the rest of the watch. One player (out of four), decided that he wanted to fight these scouts... for no apparent reason other than (my character would to it). The other players wanted to continue fleeing and evade the watch (which was also what I had counted on). After having a rather heated in- and out of character argument they all decided to fight anyway simply because they didn't want to leave the one that wanted to fight.

And fight they did. I made the fight pretty hard (to sort of teach them a lesson), but I fudged a few rolls mainly because I didn't want the players who had wanted to flee to lose their characters just because one of them wanted to fight. In the end, the players won the fight, killed the scouts (even after I gave them a hint that they would knock them out if they wanted) and took their horses. They then fled and evaded the rest of the watch and continued to their dungeon crawl.

My predicament is how to deal with this when they return to town. They story needs for them to be able to enter town and get their reward etc, but at the same time I don't want to hand-wave what is essentially murder of innocent and good men just doing their job.

How would you guys handle this?

I'm sure one of the players with high CHA will try to use Deception to try to say that it wasn't them who killed the scouts, but I kind of don't feel like I should let them off the hook on this one. They may also argue that it was self-defense, which isn't true. They are all of neutral or chaotic good or lawful neutral alignment, however they sometimes roleplay as chaotic neutral (especially when it comes to money or killing... so basically Murder-Hobos).

One thing I thought of was to give them a pardon because they essentially saved the town, but deduct a rather large sum from their reward (say 500-700 gold off of 2000 total), and say that that money will go to supporting the widows and orphans of the men they killed.

What do you guys think I should do?

If it was me?

If they're stupid enough to re-enter town, have them arrested and placed on charges of murder and sedition against the Crowns authority. Seperate them (in real life too) and get confessions from them individually. Have the town Cleric present to cast zone of truth or similar lie detection magic. Force confessions out of them. Play good cop/ bad cop. (Falsely) promise pardons if they tell the truth. Roleplay it by shining a light in their faces if necessary. Do whatever you can to get the confessions. Maybe even give them a trial (unlikely, but possible).

Then (if guilt is proven, and they havent escaped) hang the lot of them. Make sure you do it in front of the grieving mothers, wives and children of the innocent men they killed. Describe how these innocent and good people look up at gallows at the monsters that killed their loved ones and orphaned their kids. Then have the players roll up new characters.

Actions have consequences. Dont wussy out. You'll find your rate of murderhoboism will drop drastically after this.

I'm deadly serious by the way.

[Wymmerdann]

Hahaha. Never change, Malifice, never change.

@NiklasWB

Just following on in light of some recent commentary by others: I don't think you should change the narrative [the guards didn't die/were corrupt/etc] because that means you're playing goalie for the PC's, and they'll expect you to do so in the future ["Sure, the Golden Dragon defending the world from the Far Realm was actually an Ancient Red who fell in molten Gold and liked to eat puppies, why not?"]. This is exactly the opposite of what this thread is meant to be about: enforcing consequences.

The second thing that needs to be raised is the difference between punishing players and punishing characters. Most of the suggested options here are at least partially appropriate for punishing characters, but I sense your resistance to the ideas is that you don't want to punish the players. In your defence, the players have only really gone "off script" for a scene or so, and so I understand that you don't want to derail the campaign [which is probably a bigger punishment to you than the players] to deal with that slip up. Players should be "punished" in this context in that their choices have logical consequences, rather than any need to be vindictive, which I think most of us understand.

So the option you're looking for is a significant punishment to the characters [who are, on the facts you've laid out, guilty of eight counts of murder and a host of other crimes], while salvaging your narrative. You don't want to rip up a bunch of character sheets at the start of a new session, so we need a work-around that protects the integrity of your setting [including the righteous anger of the commoners and the local laws]. Don't shove this under the closet or attempt to obscure the fact that the heroic deeds of the party are significantly undermined by their villainy. If you want the good acts of your characters to have moral or narrative weight, then you need to give just as much weight to significant acts of evil.

I would suggest an approach that lets the characters drive their response to the problem, but one that reacts to it appropriately.


The driving question, narratively, is going to be, do they submit to the law, or are they outlaws? Even if they pull of some deposing shenanigans, this remains pertinent, and should be a significant choice for any lawfully aligned character. Changing who runs the town should not change the laws regarding murder.

There are two very pertinent details that should be considered in any trial, that have not been thoroughly examined here. The first is that the kind of wealth that is being thrown around as a reward or weregild is significant, and will impact significantly on the lives of commoners if handed over as a weregild [which is an appropriate punishment for both players and characters]. Mothers and wives of the victims might hate the PC's, as they should, but will accept the weregild, because it provides them economic security in a context without a welfare system. It seems unrealistic to have these characters forgive the PC's at any point, even if accepting the money forces them to say that they do. They hate the PC's and will do them harm whenever the opportunity arises. Down the track you might even re-meet the son or daughter or one of these guards, who has gone through an Inigo Montoya-like journey, and vowed vengeance for the murder of their parent.

Secondly, your PC's have saved a bunch of lives! Good on them, they should be proud. Introduce one of these refugees to them as a leader of his people, an honourable and upstanding smith or farmer. He should be engaging and helpful to the PC's [give him good lines, and the opportunity to provide genuine assistance that makes the players value him]. His friends laugh at his jokes, and the other refugees draw near when he speaks words of wisdom. At the trial [which can be glossed over, as long as the significant notes are hit regarding seriousness] the weregild is set, but the authorities still demand that the instigating PC be executed, because gold alone cannot wash out so much blood. This NPC smith leader invokes an ancient substitutionary law that would allow him, as a man who owes his life to the party generally, and to the instigator character in particular, to be executed in the place of the instigator. It's the kind of backward law that might exist on the books, but more importantly connects the good deeds the heroes have done, with the evil deeds they've also committed. Some people [and PC's] should reject this law, saying the good deeds cannot wash out the bad. It provides an excellent opportunity for you to engage with the issue at the table, and I'd encourage you to do so.

The instigator character has two options, and both of them should make him feel terrible. He can hand in his sheet and meet his end in a noose, or let another die in his place. His honour is forever tarnished, for both the murders and the substitution, and if possible, his name should attract a dishonourable epithet "the notorious" "the cowardly" "the bloodsoaked" "the forlorn" "Manslayer"etc. There will also be simmering discontent between the families of the guards and the families of the refugees for a number of generations, as the former blame the latter for intervening in the trial, and the latter blame the former for claiming the life of the Smith Leader.

This is my take on balancing the punishment of characters and players with the importance of salvaging your narrative.

[Sigreid]

It really depends on what you want, and what kind of area they are in. If they are in a heavily civilized area, perhaps there will be a more or less modern justice system in place. If they are in a frontier area, there may not be. In that case it would be family and friends looking for revenge.

It's also possible that the ruler of the city could determine that the good and the harm they did essentially cancel each other out, so they don't hang, but they don't get their promised reward either. If that's the case they may be treated very poorly in a city where they could have reaped the benefits of being seen as heroes.

If they try to say it wasn't them, they should be reminded when it's too late that they are riding the scout's horses.

Games differ based on preferences, but I don't personally run D&D with completely modern ethics and legal systems. My D&D worlds are harsh, brutal worlds where except in the most established cities justice comes with an assassin's hand or riding an angry mob.

[RickAllison]

Interesting idea that might need to be considered. We have:

1) A potentially hazardous countryside, rife with dangerous fauna. This is risky enough on its own.

2) A depleted guard force. With such a small force and such high requirements for being a guard (since they were so powerful), the vacancies the party created won't be filled anytime soon.

3) A volatile social situation. A city full of refugees who are deeply grateful to their rescuers. Executing their saviors is just asking for a massive upheaval, which no one wants.

4) A party of talented, but unreliable PCs who are owed a reward but are criminals. They are adored by the refugees, but must be kept on a tight leash.

Because of 1, 2 is a big problem. They need a full guard force to remain protected, but 4 has reduced that capability. They want to eliminate 4, but that would cause 3 to rise up and 2 is currently insufficient to address that.

We need a way to address all four issues, and here is my plan. We can't execute the party because that creates social revolution and destabilization. We can't reward them because then the families of the killed will stir up trouble against the guard which further undermines their effectiveness. The solution is then to "reward" the PCs with community service, a stint as guards on their own.

This reward is directly a solution to 4, and also patches up the hole in the force for 2, which helps address the problems in 1. Meanwhile, appointing the heroes of the refugees as part of the guard will decrease any tension, as they feel more included in the community through shared protectors, solving 3. Kind of fixes everything, punishes the party by restricting their options if they don't want to be fugitives, and rewards them by getting the opportunity to live and actually establish themselves (while also promoting your planned story).

[Malifice]

Hahaha. Never change, Malifice, never change.


Happens to me all the time. Get a new group of players in and there is always one guy who tries to murder a NPC shopkeep, or kill a town guard or similar.

I let him.

Then the town guard come looking for who done it. They either get a confession from the PC or the PC fails his Wisdom save against a local Lawful clerics Zone of Truth, or the shopkeep/ guard identifies him after the town guard ask him who did it via speak with dead.

And then (assuming the PC doesnt escape - and any decent sized town will have cells built to hold at least mid level PCs), after a trial, the PC gets hung. Often also drawn and quartered.

It only ever happens the once.

Imagine a person killing a bunch of cops in real life, and then driving back into the same town a few days later? Because thats what these PCs are about to do. Now imagine what steps the police (and other authorities) would take if a dozen of them were kiled by a bunch of adventurers.

At a minimum at present they're wanted for sedition, resisting arrest, and multiple counts of murder (of the Kings men no less). They're big news around town, and a reward for their arrest is almost certainly out. Peasants will report them to the local authorities out of a sense of the greater good or to claim the reward (and those authorities are already searching high and low for them, probably with the aid of spell casters). The town guard are staking out where they tend to hang out (including where theyre headed to get the reward). The PCs mentors and employers are aware of what happened and likely dont want anything to do with them anymore. There is a good chance the King has hired good aligned adventurers (or the local church of good and law) to deal with a rogue bunch of powerful (class leveled player characters) killers in his realm.

Actions have consequences. Not enforcing them is one of the big reasons why murderhobism is a thing.

[RickAllison]

Happens to me all the time. Get a new group of players in and there is always one guy who tries to murder a NPC shopkeep, or kill a town guard or similar.

I let him.

Then the town guard come looking for who done it. They either get a confession from the PC or the PC fails his Wisdom save against a local Lawful clerics Zone of Truth, or the shopkeep/ guard identifies him after the town guard ask him who did it via speak with dead.

And then (assuming the PC doesnt escape - and any decent sized town will have cells built to hold at least mid level PCs), after a trial, the PC gets hung. Often also drawn and quartered.

It only ever happens the once.

Imagine a person killing a bunch of cops in real life, and then driving back into the same town a few days later? Because thats what these PCs are about to do. Now imagine what steps the police (and other authorities) would take if a dozen of them were kiled by a bunch of adventurers.

At a minimum at present they're wanted for sedition, resisting arrest, and multiple counts of murder (of the Kings men no less). They're big news around town, and a reward for their arrest is almost certainly out. Peasants will report them to the local authorities out of a sense of the greater good or to claim the reward (and those authorities are already searching high and low for them, probably with the aid of spell casters). The town guard are staking out where they tend to hang out (including where theyre headed to get the reward). The PCs mentors and employers are aware of what happened and likely dont want anything to do with them anymore. There is a good chance the King has hired good aligned adventurers (or the local church of good and law) to deal with a rogue bunch of powerful (class leveled player characters) killers in his realm.

Actions have consequences. Not enforcing them is one of the big reasons why murderhobism is a thing.

I'm assuming you mean a PC who just runs in without planning or covering their tracks. Not someone who plans out a break-in that is covered by a Silence spell, or going in with an established alibi elsewhere while under Disguise Self.

Consequences are great, but only when they make sense.

[Malifice]

I'm assuming you mean a PC who just runs in without planning or covering their tracks. Not someone who plans out a break-in that is covered by a Silence spell, or going in with an established alibi elsewhere while under Disguise Self.

You can work wonders with magic such as speak with dead, divination, zone of truth or even just a high intelligence (investigation) skills among the town guard. Heck; just the latter is enough to find clues about the culprit.

Im not saying that getting away with larceny isnt possible. But the more serious the crime, the more serious the response. Some homless vagabonds slaughtering a dozen of the town guard acting under the Kings warrant? Expect that to reach the ear of the King, and be a major event with a massive response. Wanted pictures of the PCs spread far and wide, with bounties commensurate for thier capture or slaughter. No town guard or King is gonna let that slide.

And if they get caught, they get hung,

Again; imagine gunning down a dozen cops. Then imagine the immediate and long term responses by the authorities. Now (in game) enforce those responses. Strolling back into town after murdering a dozen of the Kings men is foolish in the extreme, and almost certain to lead to the PCs being caught and hung.

Personally if it was me, I would be getting as far out of Dodge as possible. A different realm even, with a different King (preferably one hostile to the old one). From that point you only really have to worry about bounty hunters, adventurers and so forth hired by the old King (or your victims families) coming looking for you.

And in my game, they often would come looking for you.

[NiklasWB]

Hahaha. Never change, Malifice, never change.

@NiklasWB

Just following on in light of some recent commentary by others: I don't think you should change the narrative [the guards didn't die/were corrupt/etc] because that means you're playing goalie for the PC's, and they'll expect you to do so in the future ["Sure, the Golden Dragon defending the world from the Far Realm was actually an Ancient Red who fell in molten Gold and liked to eat puppies, why not?"]. This is exactly the opposite of what this thread is meant to be about: enforcing consequences.

The second thing that needs to be raised is the difference between punishing players and punishing characters. Most of the suggested options here are at least partially appropriate for punishing characters, but I sense your resistance to the ideas is that you don't want to punish the players. In your defence, the players have only really gone "off script" for a scene or so, and so I understand that you don't want to derail the campaign [which is probably a bigger punishment to you than the players] to deal with that slip up. Players should be "punished" in this context in that their choices have logical consequences, rather than any need to be vindictive, which I think most of us understand.

So the option you're looking for is a significant punishment to the characters [who are, on the facts you've laid out, guilty of eight counts of murder and a host of other crimes], while salvaging your narrative. You don't want to rip up a bunch of character sheets at the start of a new session, so we need a work-around that protects the integrity of your setting [including the righteous anger of the commoners and the local laws]. Don't shove this under the closet or attempt to obscure the fact that the heroic deeds of the party are significantly undermined by their villainy. If you want the good acts of your characters to have moral or narrative weight, then you need to give just as much weight to significant acts of evil.

I would suggest an approach that lets the characters drive their response to the problem, but one that reacts to it appropriately.


The driving question, narratively, is going to be, do they submit to the law, or are they outlaws? Even if they pull of some deposing shenanigans, this remains pertinent, and should be a significant choice for any lawfully aligned character. Changing who runs the town should not change the laws regarding murder.

There are two very pertinent details that should be considered in any trial, that have not been thoroughly examined here. The first is that the kind of wealth that is being thrown around as a reward or weregild is significant, and will impact significantly on the lives of commoners if handed over as a weregild [which is an appropriate punishment for both players and characters]. Mothers and wives of the victims might hate the PC's, as they should, but will accept the weregild, because it provides them economic security in a context without a welfare system. It seems unrealistic to have these characters forgive the PC's at any point, even if accepting the money forces them to say that they do. They hate the PC's and will do them harm whenever the opportunity arises. Down the track you might even re-meet the son or daughter or one of these guards, who has gone through an Inigo Montoya-like journey, and vowed vengeance for the murder of their parent.

Secondly, your PC's have saved a bunch of lives! Good on them, they should be proud. Introduce one of these refugees to them as a leader of his people, an honourable and upstanding smith or farmer. He should be engaging and helpful to the PC's [give him good lines, and the opportunity to provide genuine assistance that makes the players value him]. His friends laugh at his jokes, and the other refugees draw near when he speaks words of wisdom. At the trial [which can be glossed over, as long as the significant notes are hit regarding seriousness] the weregild is set, but the authorities still demand that the instigating PC be executed, because gold alone cannot wash out so much blood. This NPC smith leader invokes an ancient substitutionary law that would allow him, as a man who owes his life to the party generally, and to the instigator character in particular, to be executed in the place of the instigator. It's the kind of backward law that might exist on the books, but more importantly connects the good deeds the heroes have done, with the evil deeds they've also committed. Some people [and PC's] should reject this law, saying the good deeds cannot wash out the bad. It provides an excellent opportunity for you to engage with the issue at the table, and I'd encourage you to do so.

The instigator character has two options, and both of them should make him feel terrible. He can hand in his sheet and meet his end in a noose, or let another die in his place. His honour is forever tarnished, for both the murders and the substitution, and if possible, his name should attract a dishonourable epithet "the notorious" "the cowardly" "the bloodsoaked" "the forlorn" "Manslayer"etc. There will also be simmering discontent between the families of the guards and the families of the refugees for a number of generations, as the former blame the latter for intervening in the trial, and the latter blame the former for claiming the life of the Smith Leader.

This is my take on balancing the punishment of characters and players with the importance of salvaging your narrative.

Thank you very much. This was exactly what I needed. As you so eloquently put it, it's not just about enforcing consequences and not really about punishing the players, it is also about saving the narrative.

Like I said earlier, this next session would probably culminate in the players saving the Duke from his possession (or kill him), put his (until now imprisoned) sister on the throne, save the town and be hailed as heroes. If I were to introduce a trial as they enter the town, they players would be executed right away, no questions asked. This would essentially mean ripping up all character sheets, starting a whole new campaign, and probably me getting the stink-eye from all the players.

Yes, there should be consequences to killing guards, but in this particular instance I feel that there has to be a way around just throwing the characters and the campaign in the trashcan. As you said, the players went "off-script" only once, but has otherwise acted as the classic "good heroes". Also, something I forgot to mention was that just before escaping the town, they had fought a merchant that had also been noticeably possessed, so they knew people could be possessed. I'm not sure if this had any impact on their decision to fight the watch, but it now occurs to me that it may have.

I think the weregild is probably the best bet in this scenario, and aligns the most with my original idea of deducting gold from the reward they were going to get. So they were going to get 2000 gold, now they get nothing and the gold is paid as weregild to the widows and orphans. The widows and orphans will have to accept this but may secretly (or openly) still hate the players. This would make the players still "heroes", but dark heroes that did terrible things in the heat of the moment but still ultimately saved the city. Also, it would be somewhat hard to kill the players that just saved the town, saved 50 refugees (who I assume feel that they owe the PCs their lives), and placed the duke's sister on the throne after having been imprisoned in the dungeon for a week. I'm guessing that she could allow some for of pardon because of all the demonic possession going around.

I also don't think I can go as far as killing the instigator character. The player is the real-life brother of another player and sometimes a bit of a big-baby. He'll probably quit the campaign if I kill his character, and I don't want to risk loosing the other player. So I think the best idea (while perhaps not the most logical) is that they are not imprisoned or executed, but that they are asked to leave the town as soon as possible (to prevent any further unrest). I think this may hit a sweet-spot of the players understanding that murdering things other than monsters and pure bad-guys have consequences, but also allowing the adventure to continue (they were supposed to leave the town after this session anyways).

[Blue Lantern]

I also don't think I can go as far as killing the instigator character. The player is the real-life brother of another player and sometimes a bit of a big-baby. He'll probably quit the campaign if I kill his character, and I don't want to risk loosing the other player. So I think the best idea (while perhaps not the most logical) is that they are not imprisoned or executed, but that they are asked to leave the town as soon as possible (to prevent any further unrest). I think this may hit a sweet-spot of the players understanding that murdering things other than monsters and pure bad-guys have consequences, but also allowing the adventure to continue (they were supposed to leave the town after this session anyways).

As DM you can handle the situation as you wish, but I heartfully suggest you to have a serious talk with the problem player, and his brother, otherwise I give an 80% chance minimum that something similar is going to happen again in the future.

[JellyPooga]

And if they get caught, they get hung

Meat is hung. Men are hanged (http://grammarist.com/usage/hanged-hung/) (Oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hang)).

Saying a man/men was/were hung is...talking about something other than executing him :smalleek:

[Regitnui]

Meat is hung. Men are hanged.

Saying a man/men was/were hung is...talking about something other than executing him :smalleek:

Lynched is actually the best word. Lynch; to execute via hanging, see also lynch mob, which is what will probably come after these players when they're back in town.

[JellyPooga]

Lynched is actually the best word. Lynch; to execute via hanging, see also lynch mob, which is what will probably come after these players when they're back in town.

Lynching (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lynch)is, interestingly, a uniquely American phrase; originating in Virginia circa 1780 and refers to any execution (but especially hanging) without trial. Hanging a man with a trial is not, strictly speaking, a lynching. Mob present or otherwise.

[Knaight]

Lynching (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lynch)is, interestingly, a uniquely American phrase; originating in Virginia circa 1780 and refers to any execution (but especially hanging) without trial. Hanging a man with a trial is not, strictly speaking, a lynching. Mob present or otherwise.

The term lynch also has a lot of connotations regarding it being the organized murder of an innocent person by hanging, in service of retaining social control for a dominant group.

[manny2510]

Meta game the NPC's. The guy picked a fight because he likes combat in D&D, when they get back to town have the mayor say he hath crafted ill portents for the guy that wanted to kill the NPC's. Killing people for fun is just metagame plain and simple so make it so that he gets no magic items for a while. The party bent to his whims to smooth play, so make combat harder for him.

[Vogonjeltz]

Hey guys,

In a week I'm going to resume DMing a campaign after a few months hiatus. The players will now be getting back to town after a semi-long dungeon crawl. The thing is that they were chased out of the town having been wrongfully accused of theft, and the town watch was send after them to bring them in to face justice. Now here's when things went south.

I described about 30 watchmen giving chase, and the players got the hint and decided to flee instead of fighting. Then for flavor I decided to describe that about 6-8 of the watchmen were scouts on horseback and were moving about 5 minutes ahead of the rest of the watch. One player (out of four), decided that he wanted to fight these scouts... for no apparent reason other than (my character would to it). The other players wanted to continue fleeing and evade the watch (which was also what I had counted on). After having a rather heated in- and out of character argument they all decided to fight anyway simply because they didn't want to leave the one that wanted to fight.

And fight they did. I made the fight pretty hard (to sort of teach them a lesson), but I fudged a few rolls mainly because I didn't want the players who had wanted to flee to lose their characters just because one of them wanted to fight. In the end, the players won the fight, killed the scouts (even after I gave them a hint that they would knock them out if they wanted) and took their horses. They then fled and evaded the rest of the watch and continued to their dungeon crawl.

My predicament is how to deal with this when they return to town. They story needs for them to be able to enter town and get their reward etc, but at the same time I don't want to hand-wave what is essentially murder of innocent and good men just doing their job.

How would you guys handle this?

I'm sure one of the players with high CHA will try to use Deception to try to say that it wasn't them who killed the scouts, but I kind of don't feel like I should let them off the hook on this one. They may also argue that it was self-defense, which isn't true. They are all of neutral or chaotic good or lawful neutral alignment, however they sometimes roleplay as chaotic neutral (especially when it comes to money or killing... so basically Murder-Hobos).

One thing I thought of was to give them a pardon because they essentially saved the town, but deduct a rather large sum from their reward (say 500-700 gold off of 2000 total), and say that that money will go to supporting the widows and orphans of the men they killed.

What do you guys think I should do?

So they killed 8 pursuers on horseback, and then left the scene, doing absolutely nothing to disguise their handiwork?

The 22-24 remaining watchmen surely came upon the scene of the fight shortly thereafter. At this point there's no reason for them to think anyone but the PCs were responsible.

Given that, a return to town would be with the understanding that they are still wanted for the theft and also for killing 8 officers of the law.

So yeah, they'd be arrested on sight to stand trial for not just the theft, but also the murders. If they fight, kill them, don't fudge the numbers, they made their choice. If they go willingly, give them the opportunity to try and prove their innocence/escape.

But either way, remind them the risks associated with returning to the town, maybe it's just not worth their time or effort.

[Regitnui]

Lynching (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lynch)is, interestingly, a uniquely American phrase; originating in Virginia circa 1780 and refers to any execution (but especially hanging) without trial. Hanging a man with a trial is not, strictly speaking, a lynching. Mob present or otherwise.

Huh. The more you know. Thanks.

[The Zoat]

Something I think would bear mentioning is that if you compensate the plot you should tell your players flat-out -they cocked up. They might think this sort of kill-fest is expected and that you planned for it.

[Sigreid]

Sometimes the best answer is to let them fail. That doesn't mean you have to kill them.

[lperkins2]

Hm, this sorta reminds me of Shadow of a Dark Queen, which opens with the heroes getting forced into a suicide squad for a dangerous mission. If they survive, and accomplish their mission, they get to live. No reward, no official pardon, can be called back for another suicide mission at any time, but for now they keep their heads.

[Reynaert]

How about this (expands on the earlier idea about having the town suffer the consequences of the dead watchmen):

The posessed duke replaced the dead watchmen with his own henchmen, thereby ensuring his grip on the town. It has now become clear to the townspeople that the duke is posessed, but they can't do anything about it, because the players killed those watchmen (who were the only thing standing in the way of the hostile takeover).

Perhaps a number of bandits also took residence in the town, mates of the possessing entity, stuff like that.

Make sure the players know that it's their fault that the town got oppressed, and that the townspeople are suffering because of them. Really rake on the guilt, but at the same time, give them an opening for saving the town from the possessed duke and his henchmen. If they win, double heroes! The thing with the watchmen is forgiven, etc.

Edit: For the clincher, have the possessed duke thank them personally for getting rid of those pesky watchmen, and have him give the players some overly obviously evil gift as a thank you reward.

[Finieous]

Hey guys,

In a week I'm going to resume DMing a campaign after a few months hiatus. The players will now be getting back to town after a semi-long dungeon crawl. The thing is that they were chased out of the town having been wrongfully accused of theft, and the town watch was send after them to bring them in to face justice. Now here's when things went south.


Cool, so this is an outlaw campaign.



In the end, the players won the fight, killed the scouts (even after I gave them a hint that they would knock them out if they wanted) and took their horses. They then fled and evaded the rest of the watch and continued to their dungeon crawl.


Outlaws.



My predicament is how to deal with this when they return to town. They story needs for them to be able to enter town and get their reward etc, but at the same time I don't want to hand-wave what is essentially murder of innocent and good men just doing their job.


::record scratch::

Why would the outlaws return to town? If they return to town, it should only be to rob the bank (er, the moneylender). Unless they actually want to take over the town and have the ability to do so. Outlaw gangs do that sort of thing sometimes.

Seriously, you've gotten some good ideas about how you might be able to get this back on the rails. My default suggestion is never to get on rails in the first place. The story doesn't need anything, or if it does, the players will decide what it needs. Set up interesting situations and conflicts and let the player characters resolve them. Play it straight with the consequences and use them to set up new situations and new conflicts. Let the players create the story based on their choices and actions.

[krugaan]

Interesting idea that might need to be considered. We have:

1) A potentially hazardous countryside, rife with dangerous fauna. This is risky enough on its own.

2) A depleted guard force. With such a small force and such high requirements for being a guard (since they were so powerful), the vacancies the party created won't be filled anytime soon.

3) A volatile social situation. A city full of refugees who are deeply grateful to their rescuers. Executing their saviors is just asking for a massive upheaval, which no one wants.

4) A party of talented, but unreliable PCs who are owed a reward but are criminals. They are adored by the refugees, but must be kept on a tight leash.

Because of 1, 2 is a big problem. They need a full guard force to remain protected, but 4 has reduced that capability. They want to eliminate 4, but that would cause 3 to rise up and 2 is currently insufficient to address that.

We need a way to address all four issues, and here is my plan. We can't execute the party because that creates social revolution and destabilization. We can't reward them because then the families of the killed will stir up trouble against the guard which further undermines their effectiveness. The solution is then to "reward" the PCs with community service, a stint as guards on their own.

This reward is directly a solution to 4, and also patches up the hole in the force for 2, which helps address the problems in 1. Meanwhile, appointing the heroes of the refugees as part of the guard will decrease any tension, as they feel more included in the community through shared protectors, solving 3. Kind of fixes everything, punishes the party by restricting their options if they don't want to be fugitives, and rewards them by getting the opportunity to live and actually establish themselves (while also promoting your planned story).

Someone's otching to see the Suicide Squad, I see, lol

[RickAllison]

Someone's otching to see the Suicide Squad, I see, lol

You can't prove anything :smallwink:

[Osrogue]

You could not go back. That's probably not what you want to hear, but you end the day with the duke's sister alive and the duke still in power. One day in the future, the heroes can maybe return to the town after a point when the heroes have more renown, and things have worsened to the point where the duke's sister or a person they rescued tracks them down and begs them to come back.

Maybe the duke is open about his demonic nature, demons have possessed the other guards, or has started sacrificing the souls of villagers or something, and the villagers want the heroes come back because no one else will help them, and they remember that once they helped them.

There won't be a reward for it and they could potentially refuse and leave the villagers to their fate, but it's a chance to make up for the villagers they failed during this quest, and the new duke/duchess could pardon them for their aid even if many people outwardly/inwardly hate them.

In short, what I'd try to do is call the quest a failure, with a little asterisk next to it. (the I'm assuming duke tried to frame them for a crime, and it worked out better than the BBEG than expected when some brave men were killed in their escape.) The BBEG won. It happens, theoretically anyway. It's now a plot point that can be returned to, rather than just a pitstop towards a different destination. I say let him move his evil plan forward and and allow the party face him again on a later date.

[Herobizkit]

It's true. If the players did in fact kill all the witnesses, there is no one prove that they are murderers.

If they are found 'guilty', indentured servitude seems the most likely punishment.

[Regitnui]

Indentured servitude

Read: Lots of quest hooks. :smallcool:

[Seppo87]

If they manage to trick everyone into believeing they're innocent, they should get away with it.

A good GM has the world react with coherence not in a paternalistic, interventionist way.

You *want* them to be punished because you don't *like* what they did? That's not good reason to *punish* them.
In fact, that's what bad GMs do.

They left a fatal hint that will blow up their story? (not by your fiat: they actually did) ?
Then you have a good reason to make some NPCs try and do something about it, in a proportionate way (i.e. do not mobilize cosmic forces and armies if a character steals a banana just because the character is very strong. No army would accept to fight for a stolen banana. Stay realistic)

Here's another example: Your LV12 group of players decide they want to exterminate a small isolated village.
You don't like it, but they specifically say they are looking for a small, isolated place. Before attacking, they investigate to make sure no one from other towns is coming in the following days.
They spend one week placing deadly traps around the village in the most likely escape routes.
One night, they make sure to kill each and every mount in the village, then start burning everything down and killing those who manage to avoid the traps.

Yep, everyone dies.

Bad GM: "you're playing in a way I don't like! Your characters will suffer!" then proceed to have incoherent stuff happen so they fail, because of course, they must be railroaded into painful fail unless they play exactly how the GM wants.

Good GM lets them get away with it, because the plan is objectively good, then speak with the players outside of the game: "I thought we wanted to play a heroic story. What was that about? Should we redefine the boundaries of our playstyle?"