PDA

View Full Version : Was I too harsh?



Abbott
2007-07-03, 05:10 AM
My last adventure (which I'll post in its entirity because I am quite proud of it at some later time) has just ended with the death of one of the more intriguing party members and I was wondering if I were too harsh.

The party had been hired by a chancellor Garrack in a town council to find who had been selling information to a lesser army of slave traders who attacked the town yearly when the city guard performed ceremonius duties elsewhere.

However, the party uncovers that the good chancellor perhaps wasn't so good at all, in fact he worships demons and when they hire a priest to cast speak with the dead and communicate with his wife, someone is there when they've gone away and murders the priest (with scorching rays) and destroys the remains of the body (I know it's Garrack who has seven levels of sorceror). They then hint at Garrack's doctor that they had spoken to the priest when he was still alive. Garrack's spies also reveals to him that they've speaking to his rival in the town council, chancellor Gherras.

After they solve the mystery of the slave traders, Gherras offers them the chance to destroy Garrack and aside from monetary compensation will spirit them away, also hinting at that Garrack will kill them and that they need an antimagic stone to defeat him because he's so powerful.

However, one of the players takes charge and goes to Garrack and even reveals to him "We know you're a demon worshipper, but that's ok! Just give us our money and we'll be off!" In fact, one of them even carries a symbol of the cult that opposes him, whose very symbol is seen as a terrible blasphemy in the town.

Garrack's response is fireball (the guy is smart and has sized his office up accordingly and with stone walls) and then scorching ray and he scores a critical hit, killing one character (they're only level 4). The other two escape from the window and alert the priesthood and Gherras.

Was I too mean in killing him?

Kiero
2007-07-03, 05:21 AM
Sounds like the player took a calculated risk, and lost out. More to the point are there agreements in your group about character death? Did the player feel aggrieved about the result?

If no to both of the above, there's probably nothing to worry about.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-03, 05:23 AM
As it's described here it would seem to be a terminal case of bad-idea-itis on part of the players. So I'd say no, it was not too harsh, and in general the knowledge for the players that their characters are indeed mortal adds realism to the game world.

Yechezkiel
2007-07-03, 05:24 AM
Was I too mean in killing him?

No way. Garrack is a filthy Cardassian.

Sounds like said deceased character was just trying to bleed some coin out of the villian before his party decided to off him. A for effort.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-03, 05:26 AM
Hard to say. It is a logical response. Even if they did get all the guys money, they might still tell everyone about it anyways. Why should he trust them? They are blackmailing him after all. Hardly an indication of trust worthy behavoir

I guess the question is how deadly a game do you play though.

Another option might be that he tries to negotiate with them a bit first. "That's a lot of gold and I kind of you know, NEED it. How about I just give you large amounts of it instead?"

You can also combine that with other option, lull them into false sense of security so that the guy can pull of an even deadlier plan, thus teaching the players a lesson in 'don't try to negotiate with Demon Worshipers.'

Still, I'm a fan of the idea of beating evil by being more crafty, devious, and underhanded then they are. That's just me though :P

banjo1985
2007-07-03, 05:29 AM
I'd agree it wasn't too harsh, as long as the player wasn't inexperienced. Is it the first time they've played a campaign, or have they had relatively little roleplaying experience? If so then it may have been wise to give them a second chance, letting one of the other players drag their unconcious body out of the window when they escaped, then telling the player to be more careful next time.

However, if they're an experienced roleplayer who made a bad decision, or who intentionally played a foolhardy character then I have no problem with death meaning death in this case.

nerulean
2007-07-03, 06:35 AM
That was patently stupid and deserved fiery death. It was perfectly in character for the bad guy to do, which should have been fairly obvious:

Okay, I'm evil. Some guy is trying to blackmail me. I can pay him, thus distinctly inconveniencing myself and frankly leaving myself open to further blackmail, or I can blast the guy, solving the problem permanently for the price of a handful of bat guano. Tricky choice.

Rad
2007-07-03, 07:21 AM
It's not unexpected and it's not like you threw a powerful NPC at them... they went to blackmail him!
I agree with the above poster saying that a game in which PCs just can't die is not as funny. Let them die when they take risks.

Renx
2007-07-03, 07:40 AM
Completely appropriate. Players should realize that just because your story happens to involve them, it does not revolve around them. If they go about doing stupid things with the assumption that they (the Heroes) can't be hurt, you should definitely throw stuff like that at them.

In fact, now that Garrack knows that they know, he's most likely going to frame them for whatever he wants to cover up and send the militia after them.

lord_khaine
2007-07-03, 07:40 AM
i also agree on that it was a fair response from the villian, rolling up new chars is a part of d&d anyway.

warmachine
2007-07-03, 07:52 AM
"Was I too harsh?"

Enough grammar nazism. The players were warned the BBEG was a BBEG, not some minor supporting character. Antagonists hurt people when they think they can get away with it. Antagonists who desire power don't like being manipulated. The action was reasonable for such a person and in the spirit of the genre. The genre and what role the antagonist filled was obvious. You can't save the players from really dumb mistakes.

WhyBother
2007-07-03, 10:49 AM
I agree with the above poster saying that a game in which PCs just can't die is not as funny. Let them die when they take risks.

There's always a way to detect the regular DM in a group....

On topic, that was a completely justified kill. Sometimes evil characters can be negotiated with, even reasonable... just not when you're trying to extort them, and they can summon more fire from their fingertips than you can.

Driderman
2007-07-03, 10:56 AM
I'd say the killing was justified, although I might not agree with how it was done. Evil chancellors who worships demons shouldn't really sling around fireballs, should they? I'd say that triple-cross would've been the ticket. Give the players the money, then call the guard down on them for stealing it, or maybe just point your mandatory pet assasin in their general direction.
But no, it wasn't too harsh at all. If players are stupid enough to blackmail evil demon-worshipping sorcerors without having a backup plan, they should be prepared to feel the hurt when their plans crumble

BRC
2007-07-03, 10:58 AM
totally justified, especially since you made it preety clear that A: Garrack was evil and powerful and B: that they should go get an antimagic stone before trying to take him on. It would have been unjustified had you had Garrack go to them, considering how much he outleveled them.

Tallis
2007-07-03, 11:14 AM
Well I don't see where it says they were blackmailing him like everyone else seems to think. It says "give us our money". Emphasis mine. As in the money owed for the services he hired them for. At least that's the way I read it.

I do think the killing was justified though. The group was warned that theyu would need help to beat Garrack. Instead of getting it they went to him and revealed that they knew about him. He's obviously smart enough to know that if the information got out it would threaten his position in the town, if not his life. One of them is wearing the symbol of a cult that opposes him? They're obviously enemies. If I were him I would have killed them too. In fact it's not safe to leave the survivors running arround out there, I'd want to hunt them down and kill them as quickly as possible too. If that's not possible I'd go into hiding (I know the jig is up) and come back later for revenge.
The killing was appropriate and now you have the basis for a recurring villain that the players will fear. He's already killed one of them after all.

Diggorian
2007-07-03, 11:53 AM
Garrack was perfectly in character to kill anyone that knew his secret. The players knew ahead of time he was dangerous. THey didnt heed Gherras' warning, so one died.

Further, as Tallis mentions, he should be looking to finish them off; the whole group actually. A charismatic official with the backing of a government and strong spells makes an excellant recurring villain. He need not even leave his post either, he could smear the PCs as opportunists that force him to defend himself. The word of foreign adventurers and his rival may not be enough.

Your players should be kicking themsleves, not you. :smallamused:

Rofl-Falafal
2007-07-03, 01:46 PM
Yeah. Killing PC's when they don't think things through is my modus operandi as a DM. This is one of those situations that brings to mind the old proverb "What did you THINK was gonna happen?!"

I agree with Banjo1985. If this was the players' first game or first real roleplaying experience, then killing them for a poorly informed choice is a bit too harsh. However, if they were seasoned Rpers and still did something that sophomoric, you were in the right.

Personally I'm a little less subtle. I dropped a Gibbering Mouther on our party's monk when he decided to sprint into an unchecked room to prove there were no traps.

Dairun Cates
2007-07-03, 01:57 PM
Personally, I'm a fan of letting a character live and then making them suffer for a stupid mistake for a long time as a role-playing opportunity. Honestly, death is just too valiant for some decisions. In this case, yeah, the player pretty much was going to get death when he did this. Still, I prefer suffering over death. At least that way when another GM that was a player gets revenge on me out of spite, I'll get to have some fun with it.

LotharBot
2007-07-03, 02:34 PM
Personally, I would've provided the players with an "is that your final answer?" type opportunity for a way out. When they're going to do something that colossally stupid, I want to give them warning and a chance to decide that maybe it's not such a good idea.

I may have had them, for example, roll a sense motive or diplomacy check when talking to the BBEG to realize that making the "demon worshipper" comment and wearing the symbol would be a really bad idea. Like, give them an opportunity to recall/discover that the BBEG is the sort of person who would fly off the handle and attack them if they provoked him.

But, if they persisted in attacking him... sucks to be them.

Lord Tataraus
2007-07-03, 03:03 PM
Well I don't see where it says they were blackmailing him like everyone else seems to think. It says "give us our money". Emphasis mine. As in the money owed for the services he hired them for. At least that's the way I read it.

They blackmailed him somewhat indirectly by revealing that they know he is a demon worshiper. That part of information was unnecessary, they could have just went in and said "give us our money" and they might have survived longer. But instead they threatened him with their knowledge. I once ran a campaign about how dangerous knowledge was. I player got mixed up in the knowledge trade and ended up a powerful member of his arcane guild who thought he was about 20th level (at level 7) and got an advanced great wyrm red dragon and an epic level sorcerer/swordsage crime queen after him becuase of some knowledge he "stole" which they were trying to "get back". Then the made a deal with an overgod to get an imprisoned god free and thus made allies with a couple of gods, but enemies of other, one of which a player attacked at level 15 (I was a little too soft with him).

Corolinth
2007-07-03, 03:24 PM
"Hi! We know you're secretly the Big Bad! But we'll take the secret to our graves!"

"Yes, you will." *kills PCs*

Nope. Not too harsh at all.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 06:36 PM
Agreed. Not too harsh at all, it could have been a Total Party Kill; frankly, they got off lightly.

Abbott
2007-07-05, 04:20 AM
For starters, they didn't blackmail him, they were simply trying to get the reward for finding his daughter who had been kidnapped.

They were rather experienced, all of them have played at least a year and knows that I try to hint that some really bad decisions are in fact, bad. The player who is in charge of the group can be very pig-headed and merely disliked Gherras, thus not wanting his help. They tried to come up with different plans but they decided he was rather sympathetic after all...

As for triple-crossing and that, Garrack knew they had backing from the church and Gherras. Though they couldn't prove anything, they knew he was guilty. The town guard was away, ceremoniously hunting demons (the town is pretty much a theocracy and it's so remote that no one is going to try to attack it without the guard knowing it. Also, its believed that as long as the demon hunt continues every year, their god will look after them). Assassins in town are very rare, since Gherras has a few tricks of his own and the two mafia-type families try to stay out of politics in return for being untouchable by the law.

In the end, the PCs got their revenge, though. They managed to send off a familiar to Gherras and gathered the priesthood, who found indiscriminating evidence for unauthorized sorcery and (when they look in his basement) demonolatry.

RandomNPC
2007-07-05, 06:20 PM
i had someone join my group as a bard. he crafted a few bandoleers and filled them with alchemists fire. when it came down to saving the party from jail he got away and went to the public trial, where he decided it was time to hug the mayor and announce how much alchemists fire he had on him.

he died in his first game.

second character second game. dual weilder fighter, entire group gets potions of water breathing and freedom of movement, and go off to fight a krakken. whats he do? he decides to fight the thing face to face, within bite range.

unfortunately he did not survive.

game three character three. wizard with a broom of flying and lots of long ranged spells. kobolds with boulderstones (dragon magazine) do a good 2d6 per shot at him, with a group of four flanking the side of the battle he went off to see. so 50 feet up and a balane check later he's at 10hp and is dangling from his broom, refusing to lower himself. one charge attack from the fighter and a bunch of AoO latter and the wizard is saved.

he survived, but never showed up to play again.

i've got another new player who's been playing it smart, and has survived two games so far. i actually don't have a large death rate in my games, i just had a verry un-wise player.

Roderick_BR
2007-07-05, 08:45 PM
PC goes to a powerful villain.
"Hi, I know your filthy secret, but I'm not telling, don't worry. Just pay me for that job, and I'll go away."

Yeah, bad idea on part of the player. You could have warned him about the symbols, and hinted how dangerous it was, and that's it.