Penalties for murderhoboism?

[BiPolar]

I recently just completed a session where my group of 4 PCs (alignments: LE, CN, N, CN) just finished a tough fight against a couple of Iron Golems and some Helmed Horrors. On the way to the battle, a Treant told them that the Golems had captured 6 local halflings (one of the PC is a halfling from the region) and that the Golems were cutting down their forest and enlisted their help. The Treant also told them that there were likely other Treants near where they are keeping the Halflings and if they can find them they can help. Basically, trying to help them figure out a way to free the halflings without just a giant murder rampage on the Golems/Horrors.

Once it was clear that was their intention, I had a Treant reach out and stop the halfling from engaging first and said "Wait...watch them and you'll see an opening" (also known as the most heavy handed hint ever.)

Well, it was ignored and the group went into battle. Five out of Six halflings were killed, and the Treant that tried to help them got caught in a Blade Barrier. SO yeah, they killed a Treant (others saw it) and they got most of the halflings killed.

The other (minor) issue is that this is a rotating DM group, so whomever is DMing has their character in play, but really not fully active. So my character is going to suffer the consequences of the group decisions.

Anywho, I'm not sure how to proceed. I was going to set up a conversation between the final living halfling and the group (also exposing that two of the dead halflings are the parents of the halfling in our group to try to force empathy, but this guy is True Neutral and likely will just brush it off.)

There seems to be a need for consequences, but I'm not quite sure what.

The group is Level 11/12 for the most part and they're on their way to a beholder lair. First having to travel through the orest of the Treants.

[The Shadowdove]

Perhaps have their own deity penalize a caster by denying spell slots. This can be translated as mystra, or whichever the prominent god of magic is in your setting, being directly disappointed in someone and punishing them until their atone.

Or have a deity who has a similar domain to the creatures slain send a high level avatar, or handmaiden. Perhaps their own personal servant and dealer of justice to either slay, imprison, enforce an atonement, or enact a blood toll for the families of the deceased.

Or a family member of the deceased happens to be a high level hero in their own right. Powerful enough to challenge the party alone, or with their own group.

Or one of the deceased is family member to important diplomats. In order to maintain peace with their allies, all surrounding kingdoms have posted wanted signs and enacted a trade embargo. No trade with the party or their affiliates until they are brought to justice (legal or death your choice), this includes any religious orders or guilds they are affiliated with.

This makes pressure for their allies even to get to them first. Either to end them personally, or to try talking sense into them. An entire region is bound to have high levels allied to them as well. So lawdoers or bounty hunters may be interested in their head as well. Their affiliates may even block their funding or pray to their gods to prevent spells from being regained upon rest for the party.

Anyone they kill who is following the law only works against them. It makes them look bad to the kingdom(s) and as more of a threat. They may even attract attention from the planes involving law and order if they start causing too much mayhem.

[Contrast]

Sorry - to be clear, they didn't actually kill anyone (well, not anyone they weren't meant to) but their tactical ineptness resulted in hostages and allies getting killed?

I'm not really sure what consequences you'd expect for that other than the PCs reputation to decline - people might be less willing to hire them or actively discourage them from getting involved.

I would definately steer clear of randomly deciding to have the dead halflings be your PCs parents.

[Ronnocius]

The halflings could return as revenants and hunt down the party, and the treants might banish the party from the forest.

[JellyPooga]

The penalties for murderhoboism are very often self evident. In this case, the PCs won't be getting help from the Halflings that died (the surviving Halfling has enough problems of his own without going out of his way to aid them), nor any further help from the Treants (their "haste" and carelessness got one of their number killed). This alone is going to make the parties task harder than it needed to be.

Without the Treants on-side, their journey through the forest might even be hindered by other "hasty" Treants, Fey and plant creatures. Without the Halflings on-side, the PCs don't have access to the local community for supplies and might even have a fight on their hands if they try to push for it.

It sounds like the PCs have made their bed; make them lie in it. If they want to go around making enemies, cooling relations between potential allies and generally relying solely on themselves, that's their call. Let them go it alone.

[BiPolar]

Perhaps have their own deity penalize a caster by denying spell slots. This can be translated as mystra, or whichever the prominent god of magic is in your setting, being directly disappointed in someone and punishing them until their atone.

Or have a deity who has a similar domain to the creatures slain send a high level avatar, or handmaiden. Perhaps their own personal servant and dealer of justice to either slay, imprison, enforce an atonement, or enact a blood toll for the families of the deceased.

Or a family member of the deceased happens to be a high level hero in their own right. Powerful enough to challenge the party alone, or with their own group.

Unfortunately, we've got basically 2 characters without a specific deity (monk and rogue) and two others whose deity is Bane. Not so much of an issue there.



Or one of the deceased is family member to important diplomats. In order to maintain peace with their allies, all surrounding kingdoms have posted wanted signs and enacted a trade embargo. No trade with the party or their affiliates until they are brought to justice (legal or death your choice), this includes any religious orders or guilds they are affiliated with.

This makes pressure for their allies even to get to them first. Either to end them personally, or to try talking sense into them. An entire region is bound to have high levels allied to them as well. So lawdoers or bounty hunters may be interested in their head as well. Their affiliates may even block their funding or pray to their gods to prevent spells from being regained upon rest for the party.

Anyone they kill who is following the law only works against them. It makes them look bad to the kingdom(s) and as more of a threat. They may even attract attention from the planes involving law and order if they start causing too much mayhem.
They're sort of in a bit of a pocket universe right now. Think Oz :) They have definitely just pissed off the halfling tribe that one of them is from (and has left with not a lot of love lost) and now the Treants. There isn't really a structure here other than what is being controlled by the Wizard (necromancer whom they met earlier and he killed one of the party). The goal they have had is to gather the pieces of his lieutenants (Brain of a Mummy Lord, Hand (acting as heart) of an Iron Golem, and the eye(courage) of a Death Tyrant). They've done the first two with only the latter Beholder battle coming up before the finale against the Necromancer.

We're definitely a combat-focused group, but I thought a prison escape would have been enough to interest them beyond straight battle. I was wrong :) But I do think there needs to be a consequence for it. I just don't know what it is without killing off the party :) Which I'm disinclined to do because my own character is in it.

[gfishfunk]

Going a different direction:

- The treants are now passively hostile to the characters and are willing to engage them in battle. Right or wrong, inept or otherwise, they believe the party is at fault.

- Give more targeted quests. Hone in on the desires of the characters and bait them with those things. murderhoboism is not a huge issue based on their alignements: LE, CN, N, CN. Freeing the halflings is not a huge incentive for them; one of the halflings (the treants don't know which one) has some information that is useful to them....and useful to your PCs to exploit. There is some good bait right there.

[BiPolar]

The penalties for murderhoboism are very often self evident. In this case, the PCs won't be getting help from the Halflings that died (the surviving Halfling has enough problems of his own without going out of his way to aid them), nor any further help from the Treants (their "haste" and carelessness got one of their number killed). This alone is going to make the parties task harder than it needed to be.

Without the Treants on-side, their journey through the forest might even be hindered by other "hasty" Treants, Fey and plant creatures. Without the Halflings on-side, the PCs don't have access to the local community for supplies and might even have a fight on their hands if they try to push for it.

It sounds like the PCs have made their bed; make them lie in it. If they want to go around making enemies, cooling relations between potential allies and generally relying solely on themselves, that's their call. Let them go it alone.

I was hoping to not slow down the campaign by another fight in the forest, but I think it's necessary. And it's for 0XP. There is also a mechanic now where they have limited food sources (until the cleric prepares create food/water). I can add difficult terrain to slow them down to force that mechanic earlier, eating up a 3rd level spell slot for the cleric (which is kinda unfair because the cleric didn't engage first, the monk/swashbuckler snuck in to what I thought was observe, and then they attacked.)

They can also be kept up at night while in the forest and gain exhaustion levels. It's a tool used too often by another player who often DMs, but I think it fits here.

[GorogIrongut]

Think Freddy Krueger... or Jason. Actions have consequences...

http://geekandsundry.com/play-a-horror-movie-slasher-in-your-5e-campaign/

Their reckless abandon and ensuing slaughter has triggered a spirit of rage and of loss. One of the halflings was angry enough, or related to someone capable of getting angry enough of turning into a Slasher Sorceror.

The twisted and malignant spirit of the halfling cries out for vengeance and has warped into a thing of nightmares. It begins to stalk them, never far away. Always creepily humming a small tune. Using an iconic weapon. The first time they kill it, they'll feel a sense of relief from the creepy factor... but when it comes back from the dead, then they'll really get freaked. They won't be sure how many times he will come back... All of the horror films of their youths will be playing in the background of their subconscious.

You get to decide how tough it is. If you want, you can have it be a challenge for the party. Or you can include it just to creep the daylights of them. Either way, they're never going to forget it.

[BiPolar]

- Give more targeted quests. Hone in on the desires of the characters and bait them with those things. murderhoboism is not a huge issue based on their alignements: LE, CN, N, CN. Freeing the halflings is not a huge incentive for them; one of the halflings (the treants don't know which one) has some information that is useful to them....and useful to your PCs to exploit. There is some good bait right there.

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion around halfling information.

But yeah, the murderhoboism isn't really a problem for them to do, but I think there does need to be a consequence for them having done it. I provided several very heavy handed suggestions by the Treants that were ignored. There still will be the conversation between the remaining halfling and the group. That could be used to pass on a warning, or maybe a treant picks him up and takes him away, whilst generally berating the group for what they've done and warning that there will be consequences.

[BiPolar]

Think Freddy Krueger... or Jason. Actions have consequences...

http://geekandsundry.com/play-a-horror-movie-slasher-in-your-5e-campaign/

Their reckless abandon and ensuing slaughter has triggered a spirit of rage and of loss. One of the halflings was angry enough, or related to someone capable of getting angry enough of turning into a Slasher Sorceror.

The twisted and malignant spirit of the halfling cries out for vengeance and has warped into a thing of nightmares. It begins to stalk them, never far away. Always creepily humming a small tune. Using an iconic weapon. The first time they kill it, they'll feel a sense of relief from the creepy factor... but when it comes back from the dead, then they'll really get freaked. They won't be sure how many times he will come back... All of the horror films of their youths will be playing in the background of their subconscious.

You get to decide how tough it is. If you want, you can have it be a challenge for the party. Or you can include it just to creep the daylights of them. Either way, they're never going to forget it.
THis is very cool!

[GorogIrongut]

THis is very cool!

I've been saving it for when my party has been unacceptably naughty... and not in a Santa Claus kind of way.

[BiPolar]

I've been saving it for when my party has been unacceptably naughty... and not in a Santa Claus kind of way.

This definitely qualifies as excessively naughty. Do I have it target the entire party, or just the two that initiated combat?

[GorogIrongut]

That's your choice. Who needs the most punishment? Do you need to pick a target? Did Jason only murder one of the coeds? Or did he just pick them off one by one? Maybe you do pick a target... and the others start to feel safe (ish)... only for your Slasher to decide to isolate the target first so as to heighten his emotional torture, before finally killing him/her. That isolation means capturing/killing everyone else in the party first... and will add an interesting mechanic into the party.

Choose to do it in the fashion that you think, by knowing them personally, will freak the living heck out of them. Freak them out so much that they'll think twice before ever indulging in murderhoboism.

[SilverStud]

If your party can shrug things off like "I accidentally caused the death of my parents" then they need to have a long hard look at what Neutral is. Regardless of what stance you take on what the alignments mean, that level of calloused uncaring is leaning very close to the Evil end of the spectrum. The scariest kind of person is not the raging, angry man. It is the man who doesn't care about the lives of others.

TBH, you're kinda asking for it though. You're in a pocket dimension, and it sounds like there's no real authority around here that isn't evil itself. If nothing in here affects the Prime Material ("real world"), then there is not much at all you can do to punish them.

Definitely the Treants should be actively against having these reckless, uncaring brutes in their peaceful forest. Maybe they call in their special hit-druid. Who knows. But there comes a point when you've placed yourself so firmly in opposition to someone that they won't help you no matter how well you roll CHA checks. Put some things in there that they can only really accomplish WITH THE HELP of one of the offended populations.

EDIT: It took me ages to actually post this reply, so it's a bit outdated. I really like the Jason idea, because that's just fun.

[gfishfunk]

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion around halfling information.

Its more along the lines of if you want to achieve X give incentives for X. Most campaigns the PCs will want to get the hostages out alive because the PCs are good people- its incentive enough. However, if you want to make a scenario that force the group to approach the problem in a different way (for the sake of interesting encounters, stories, etc), then provide a more targeted incentive. Who cares if the halflings survive, but ONE of them knows something that the players want to know, like the location of some good loot or blackmail information about a rival.

Another idea - have the treants the treacherous ones. They were going to murder the party anyway!

[BiPolar]

If your party can shrug things off like "I accidentally caused the death of my parents" then they need to have a long hard look at what Neutral is. Regardless of what stance you take on what the alignments mean, that level of calloused uncaring is leaning very close to the Evil end of the spectrum. The scariest kind of person is not the raging, angry man. It is the man who doesn't care about the lives of others.

TBH, you're kinda asking for it though. You're in a pocket dimension, and it sounds like there's no real authority around here that isn't evil itself. If nothing in here affects the Prime Material ("real world"), then there is not much at all you can do to punish them.

Definitely the Treants should be actively against having these reckless, uncaring brutes in their peaceful forest. Maybe they call in their special hit-druid. Who knows. But there comes a point when you've placed yourself so firmly in opposition to someone that they won't help you no matter how well you roll CHA checks. Put some things in there that they can only really accomplish WITH THE HELP of one of the offended populations.

EDIT: It took me ages to actually post this reply, so it's a bit outdated. I really like the Jason idea, because that's just fun.

I understand not having a real authority besides the evil put me as DM in an awkward spot, but I honestly thought the Treants asking for help, telling them about the halflings (whom one of the party is associated with), would have given them enough pause not to just attack. But alas, we're a combat focused group.

I think utilizing the Jason idea and maybe merging it with your Druid idea could work really well. Honestly, my plan was to TPK the group if they just went in whole-hog, but I decided against it because I also know these players :)

[Traab]

I like the idea of a spirit of vengeance type of thing, and making the treants hostile is a solid start, but it sounds like the very setting of the campaign is keeping the standard deterrents for murderhoboism from being effective. I liked the way things were handled in Everquest. Most intelligent groups had a faction. Like the major cities for each race and such, and your actions effected that faction. If you went out and insisted on doing bad things for that faction (For example, i found town guards often dropped pretty good trash loot) obviously the city likes you less and less. Some npcs stop giving you quests, then noone is willing to talk to you, then if you really push it, you are attacked by ticked off swarms of guards whenever you get too close to them.

Going beyond that, said factions who have reason to hate your party could start sending out kill squads and hiring mercs to track you down and kill you, making for random battles at the worst possible time from very dangerous groups. Or while the party may not have pissed off any gods they follow, that doesnt mean they didnt piss off any gods at all. The party may find itself under the effects of a curse that cant be removed the entire time they are in the domain of the local god. Nothing too crippling, but enough to suck as they continue being murderhobos and find themselves screwing up rolls more often. And make sure its nothing they can go out and slaughter there way to stopping like some shrine in the middle of the woods that is the focus of the effect. Its just something they have to deal with till they leave because like idiots they pissed off the nature spirit that rules this domain.

[BiPolar]

Going beyond that, said factions who have reason to hate your party could start sending out kill squads and hiring mercs to track you down and kill you, making for random battles at the worst possible time from very dangerous groups. Or while the party may not have pissed off any gods they follow, that doesnt mean they didnt piss off any gods at all. The party may find itself under the effects of a curse that cant be removed the entire time they are in the domain of the local god. Nothing too crippling, but enough to suck as they continue being murderhobos and find themselves screwing up rolls more often. And make sure its nothing they can go out and slaughter there way to stopping like some shrine in the middle of the woods that is the focus of the effect. Its just something they have to deal with till they leave because like idiots they pissed off the nature spirit that rules this domain.

This actually is another piece I could absolutely add. Mostly because I was flustered by the ignorance of my group I forgot to activate their disadvantage on saves from having looted the Mummy Lord. I've been trying to think of a way to enable it, and this is an excellent path for that. It also removes the choice of returning back to the Mummy Lord lair to end the curse. They'll have to end it another way, and that's going to be leaving the pocket world upon the hopeful death of the Necromancer. Odds are, I'm going to be killing another PC, though. Just hope it's not mine.

[BW022]

...
There seems to be a need for consequences, but I'm not quite sure what.
...


Why?

You allowed CN and evil characters into the campaign. Why do you expect them to behave as good characters? Murderhoboism is a natural result allowing evil or CN characters in most campaigns. Yes... in a world of evil or insanely selfish characters walking around with blade barrier spells... prisoners will get slaughtered and witnesses will be killed. That's what such characters do. Most of the time they will get away with it. Adventuring with such characters would also get you into trouble.

Presumably, the treants and halflings no longer associate with them, fear them, don't reward them, flee when they come near, hide from them, attack them, send for the arch-druid to chase them out of the forest, etc. If such things keep happening... other stop asking for their help, leaders charge them with crimes, bounties are offered, high level NPCs are sent out to drive off the PCs, etc.

[gfishfunk]

There seems to be a need for consequences, but I'm not quite sure what.

Why?

Consequences are not always punishments (although some are). Consequences give incentives and insight for the players. They know if they act like X, then Z will happen. Also, they make the choices more meaningful.

Very evil characters might warrant a Paladin hunting them down, sent by the gods as punishment, and can be very interesting.

It can move the story and provide more fun.

[BiPolar]

Why?

You allowed CN and evil characters into the campaign. Why do you expect them to behave as good characters? Murderhoboism is a natural result allowing evil or CN characters in most campaigns. Yes... in a world of evil or insanely selfish characters walking around with blade barrier spells... prisoners will get slaughtered and witnesses will be killed. That's what such characters do. Most of the time they will get away with it. Adventuring with such characters would also get you into trouble.

Presumably, the treants and halflings no longer associate with them, fear them, don't reward them, flee when they come near, hide from them, attack them, send for the arch-druid to chase them out of the forest, etc. If such things keep happening... other stop asking for their help, leaders charge them with crimes, bounties are offered, high level NPCs are sent out to drive off the PCs, etc.

Why? Because they let a number of halfling die, and the halflings aren't likely to be happy about that. The Treants, who asked for their help in freeing the halflings and ridding the forest of the Golems got the 2nd half, but at the cost of the first half AND one of their kind who tried to nudge them back in the right direction.

SO yeah, they pissed off a civilization of halflings and the local treants. I can't imagine in any world where those groups would just say "oh, well I guess they weren't so nice, so we'll leave them be."

I'm not saying they can't be neutral or even evil. But that when they do, there are consequences for those actions.

[Temperjoke]

The result of their actions got them the item they needed to collect, right? Why not have the penalty tied to that? "The item was corrupted by the innocent lives lost during it's acquisition, and now bears the grudge of their spirits' anger." Then raise the DC for their saves and checks, blaming the spirits for their failures, or saying they interfered, etc., until the party decides to take steps to cleanse the item, like via a specific act or ritual.

[N810]

Two words:

Zombie Halflings.

[BiPolar]

The result of their actions got them the item they needed to collect, right? Why not have the penalty tied to that? "The item was corrupted by the innocent lives lost during it's acquisition, and now bears the grudge of their spirits' anger." Then raise the DC for their saves and checks, blaming the spirits for their failures, or saying they interfered, etc., until the party decides to take steps to cleanse the item, like via a specific act or ritual.

THat's an even better. It ties it specifically to Oz, they can't get rid of it, and can't remove the curse themselves. If they wan to roleplay a way out of it, I can improvise that, but I doubt they will. And we'll just have the increased DC penalty through the end. Which could be deadly.

[Flashy]

Maybe talk to the players about the tone of the game, how you feel uncomfortable with how the situation played out, and what your relative expectations from tabletop play are rather than trying to act out a heavy-handed morality play?

Because this really feels like an expectation mismatch rather than a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people. The players seem to have thought that "rescue the halflings" meant "kill their captors." They didn't pick up on a hint from a random NPC, and then another NPC got caught in the crossfire. They largely failed the objective and moved on. Why should they have done otherwise? I'm just not seeing what's so awful about this.

[BiPolar]

Maybe talk to the players about the tone of the game, how you feel uncomfortable with how the situation played out, and what your relative expectations from tabletop play are rather than trying to act out a heavy-handed morality play?
It's very not a morality play, it's a world play. I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm just saying that letting people die you were supposed to rescue and killing (accidentally) one of the guardians of the Forest that was trying to help you (whom you ignored) has a consequence. Doing nothing seems to just say "You have no impact on the world around you other than killing stuff in it"



Because this really feels like an expectation mismatch rather than a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people. The players seem to have thought that "rescue the halflings" meant "kill their captors." They didn't pick up on a hint from a random NPC, and then another NPC got caught in the crossfire. They largely failed the objective and moved on. Why should they have done otherwise? I'm just not seeing what's so awful about this.

I made it pretty clear from the first Treant that the goal was to rescue the halflings AND kill the Golems. I said that there were likely other Treants nearby who could help. One player even had an idea for a method of contacting them and asked if it would work (I said it would) Then when I saw they were about to rush in, a Treant tried to stop them and get them to look for the opportunity to bypass the guards. He pushed past the Treant to begin his attack.

WHat's awful is they allowed the death of five halflings that could have been rescued. One survived, and saw what happened. He'll be telling his brethren. What's awful is that they accidentally killed a Treant. The Treants were trying to help, they know they were ignored and the ignorance cost the life of one of their brethren. I don't see how either the halflings or the Treants could just say "Oh, well. C'est La vie!"

[Flashy]

WHat's awful is they allowed the death of five halflings that could have been rescued. One survived, and saw what happened. He'll be telling his brethren. What's awful is that they accidentally killed a Treant. The Treants were trying to help, they know they were ignored and the ignorance cost the life of one of their brethren. I don't see how either the halflings or the Treants could just say "Oh, well. C'est La vie!"

They were reckless, made a foolish decision, and the mission went bad on them. They didn't rush in with the intention of letting the halfling or the treant die, they just made a poor decision even though they were warned. Their crime seems to have been "only saving one of the people they were trying to save, despite a good faith effort." Failure doesn't make you a murderhobo.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be changes in the game world, of course there should. The halflings will obviously be distraught that their friends are dead, and the treants might be a little less quick to trust the players (they're maybe a little unreliable now). I just don't see how this situation warrants haunting or elaborate curses.

[Arial Black]

In addition to the Jason-type spirit of vengeance, you need something more.

Guilt trips only work on those who have a conscience, and I don't think these guys have that.

You: You got your mom and dad killed!
Halfling player: It's not a problem; there are no mechanical penalties for that.

Players like this aren't bothered by RP consequences; they're just waiting for the next fight.

So give them mechanical consequences. The forest hates them now. When they try to get a long rest the forest keeps them awake. You can fluff it how you like, but the crunch is that they only get the benefits of a short rest instead of a long rest, and suffer one level of exhaustion. This happens every night they are in the forest, and the exhaustion stacks.

I don't know if there is a halfling community here (where did those hostages come from?) but if there is then the PCs cannot find it again by any means. Any help/reward they may have provided will be unattainable.

When they encounter the necromancer, instead of his Villain Speech be, "Bah! Heroes! I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you darn kids!", have the speech be, "So, you passed my tests of ruthlessness. Congratulations! Here are your rewards." and have him give them a powerful magic item each. When they attune, the side effect is that they are now his thralls, permanently Charmed by him and they have to do what he says. They are now NPCs.

In fact, the heart/hand/eye that they needed could be the items that curse them.

[BiPolar]

When they encounter the necromancer, instead of his Villain Speech be, "Bah! Heroes! I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you darn kids!", have the speech be, "So, you passed my tests of ruthlessness. Congratulations! Here are your rewards." and have him give them a powerful magic item each. When they attune, the side effect is that they are now his thralls, permanently Charmed by him and they have to do what he says. They are now NPCs.

In fact, the heart/hand/eye that they needed could be the items that curse them.

Not sure I can go with the virtual TPK out of combat :smalleek:

But I do plan on preventing rest while in the forest. And there's 3 days of forest travel left.

[Steel Mirror]

I understand not having a real authority besides the evil put me as DM in an awkward spot, but I honestly thought the Treants asking for help, telling them about the halflings (whom one of the party is associated with), would have given them enough pause not to just attack. But alas, we're a combat focused group.
It kind of sounds like you answered your own question there. It sounds like you are coming from a certain perspective: you're thinking of the heroic party, the do-gooders who save the village and accept all the sob-story subplots while insisting that they don't do this for the money, adventuring is its own reward.

The rest of the group appears to be thinking "hey it's game night, let's roll in and kill what's around to be killed, and take their stuff!"

You gave them a choice, and they pretty emphatically chose to be murderhobos. Yes, there should be consequences. Like the others are saying, the treants are probably angry at them, the halflings disinclined to give them much help, and if they make a habit of this sort of thing they'll have a seriously unpleasant reputation.

BUT, that doesn't mean that they are playing the game wrong. If they just want a no-thinking murderhobo game, that's a viable way to relax and enjoy themselves. The only problem with it is where it runs up against what you want in a game, and that's not to downplay your own preferences. You have as much right to have a say in what the game will be like as any of them. I'd recommend you talk, OOC, with the group and mention that you feel like they've been a little too stab-happy recently, and you think it would be fun to tone that down a little just so that you can play a slightly more heroic character in the midst of real scoundrels, and not have their actions ruin your fun.

In simple numbers terms, there are more of them than there are of you, so to a certain extent I think giving in to the madness and just accepting that you're in a group with some murderhobos will help you enjoy yourself. But there's also the possibility that they hear what you have to say, and change their behavior a bit in the interest of everyone having fun.

But conjuring up some kind of disproportional retribution, or twisting and bending the gameworld from here on out so that you can punish them for their misdeeds, smacks of railroading and an attempt to force the players to behave like you want them to by holding hostage their characters. I would try to solve this particular issue out of game, and leave the in-game consequences in the "real but moderate" range of seriousness.

Now, if they keep playing like this they are likely to eventually end up in waaay over their heads, and you can feel the warm glow of karmic justice if and when that happens. :smallwink:

[Battlebooze]

They were reckless, made a foolish decision, and the mission went bad on them. They didn't rush in with the intention of letting the halfling or the treant die, they just made a poor decision even though they were warned. Their crime seems to have been "only saving one of the people they were trying to save, despite a good faith effort." Failure doesn't make you a murderhobo.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be changes in the game world, of course there should. The halflings will obviously be distraught that their friends are dead, and the treants might be a little less quick to trust the players (they're maybe a little unreliable now). I just don't see how this situation warrants haunting or elaborate curses.

No no! Don't get in the way of this Old Testament GM style. There must be retribution against the characters for what they did! Their worst crime of all, apparently, was trying to do things their way and not with the Hand of God's help.
(Sarcasm intended, I agree 100% with Flashy.)

Shouldn't the foolish Treant's also get punished for their poor choice of saviors? Didn't they screw up just as badly?

Seriously, the players tried to help the Halflings! Yes, they did a poor job of it, but punishing them for trying is the worst kind of reinforcement ever. That is exactly how you get Murderhobos. Next time they see some people in trouble, they will think twice about helping.

[BiPolar]

It kind of sounds like you answered your own question there. It sounds like you are coming from a certain perspective: you're thinking of the heroic party, the do-gooders who save the village and accept all the sob-story subplots while insisting that they don't do this for the money, adventuring is its own reward.

The rest of the group appears to be thinking "hey it's game night, let's roll in and kill what's around to be killed, and take their stuff!"

You gave them a choice, and they pretty emphatically chose to be murderhobos. Yes, there should be consequences. Like the others are saying, the treants are probably angry at them, the halflings disinclined to give them much help, and if they make a habit of this sort of thing they'll have a seriously unpleasant reputation.

BUT, that doesn't mean that they are playing the game wrong. If they just want a no-thinking murderhobo game, that's a viable way to relax and enjoy themselves. The only problem with it is where it runs up against what you want in a game, and that's not to downplay your own preferences. You have as much right to have a say in what the game will be like as any of them. I'd recommend you talk, OOC, with the group and mention that you feel like they've been a little too stab-happy recently, and you think it would be fun to tone that down a little just so that you can play a slightly more heroic character in the midst of real scoundrels, and not have their actions ruin your fun.

In simple numbers terms, there are more of them than there are of you, so to a certain extent I think giving in to the madness and just accepting that you're in a group with some murderhobos will help you enjoy yourself. But there's also the possibility that they hear what you have to say, and change their behavior a bit in the interest of everyone having fun.

But conjuring up some kind of disproportional retribution, or twisting and bending the gameworld from here on out so that you can punish them for their misdeeds, smacks of railroading and an attempt to force the players to behave like you want them to by holding hostage their characters. I would try to solve this particular issue out of game, and leave the in-game consequences in the "real but moderate" range of seriousness.

Now, if they keep playing like this they are likely to eventually end up in waaay over their heads, and you can feel the warm glow of karmic justice if and when that happens. :smallwink:

You are correct in a lot of your thoughts, but as I responded earlier, this isn't a moral rebuke to their choices. I understand their alignments, but having those alignments and making the choices they made should still have consequences, right? Yes, it's about the fun of gamenight, but when the NPC is saying "save them" twice, it seems like they said "I understand your request, but we're just gonna let everyone die so we can fulfill the next piece of our quest" That's a perfectly reasonable choice for PCs of their alignments, but I still don't see how I can just shrug my shoulders and say "definitely no consequences for that."

I like the idea of the slasher pursuing them through the forest (wielding one of the cage bars as his weapon) and of the Treants harrying them so they can't rest. Those seem like fairly minor things that are a direct result of their decisions.

The addition of the curse may be too much, but then I just need to find a way to get their save disadvantage to start now (as opposed to before the fight) from their looting of the mummy lord.

[IShouldntBehere]

So. They murdered a treant and now have to travel through the forest of treants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5gGVOERXss

[BiPolar]

They were reckless, made a foolish decision, and the mission went bad on them. They didn't rush in with the intention of letting the halfling or the treant die, they just made a poor decision even though they were warned. Their crime seems to have been "only saving one of the people they were trying to save, despite a good faith effort." Failure doesn't make you a murderhobo.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be changes in the game world, of course there should. The halflings will obviously be distraught that their friends are dead, and the treants might be a little less quick to trust the players (they're maybe a little unreliable now). I just don't see how this situation warrants haunting or elaborate curses.

They definitely rushed in with the belief the Halflings would die. WHen they were going in, I even said it as DM through the Treant. "Watch the guard and there will be an opportunity." THey didn't even try and talk to find out more. Their full intent from the start was damn the halfings, not our problem.

I admit, I may be annoyed that they didn't even try to free them. But I feel that the consequences should still happen. There was a choice they made, and it was to let the halflings die.

And this was after a session recently where they were given opportunity to learn more about their surroundings which they didn't take advantage of. It cost them the life of a PC. Afterwards, I told them that had they explored and talked with more of the NPCs they could have prevented a lot of that came out. Before this session, I even told one player that this is another "if you don't pay attention, you might die".

[Battlebooze]

Wait, the players are going to be punished for failing to save everyone, yet whoever created the Golems isn't going to be harassed by Halfling ghosts or curses?

Oh man, those players need to turn Evil as fast as they can, since you protect evil activity and punish anything less that perfect goodness.

[BiPolar]

No no! Don't get in the way of this Old Testament GM style. There must be retribution against the characters for what they did! Their worst crime of all, apparently, was trying to do things their way and not with the Hand of God's help.
(Sarcasm intended, I agree 100% with Flashy.)

Shouldn't the foolish Treant's also get punished for their poor choice of saviors? Didn't they screw up just as badly?

Seriously, the players tried to help the Halflings! Yes, they did a poor job of it, but punishing them for trying is the worst kind of reinforcement ever. That is exactly how you get Murderhobos. Next time they see some people in trouble, they will think twice about helping.

I was there and can tell you at no time were the halflings even considered before, during, or after the battle. The Hand of God was to offer a way to help should they not be able to think of one themselves.

[BiPolar]

So. They murdered a treant and now have to travel through the forest of treants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5gGVOERXss

Less murder, more manslaughter. But yeah ATHF!

[BiPolar]

Wait, the players are going to be punished for failing to save everyone, yet whoever created the Golems isn't going to be harassed by Halfling ghosts or curses?

Oh man, those players need to turn Evil as fast as they can, since you protect evil activity and punish anything less that perfect goodness.

Battlebooze, rather than going after me, how about helping instead?

And the group IS going after whomever created the golems. That's the end-goal.

But if you feel, after reading my descriptions of what happened, that the players did no wrong and everything should continue coming up roses for them, I'll listen to it.

If they had tried to save ONE of the halflings instead of just fighting, it would have showed that there was interest in doing so. Not one save attempt was made. And one of the party is from the same place as those halflings (yes, he's True Neutral, but I'd think that there might have been some desire to at least try or even see who is in the cages)

[Battlebooze]

I was there and can tell you at no time were the halflings even considered before, during, or after the battle. The Hand of God was to offer a way to help should they not be able to think of one themselves.


Hmm. Interesting. Maybe you should have the badguy offer them jobs to embarrass them. Wrecking their reputation seems the best thing. If the players don't care about what people think about their characters, then maybe you should adjust your campaign towards the gray and ruthless side of things. Trying to drag them into the "light" isn't going to work out well I suspect.

[IShouldntBehere]

I was there and can tell you at no time were the halflings even considered before, during, or after the battle. The Hand of God was to offer a way to help should they not be able to think of one themselves.

Were like the halfings... anyone important? There are really only consequences if someone not the deceased cares if that they were killed, and those inviduals have power.T he PCs were being ***** but given an LE character was allowed in the game that seems to be a strong signal that being a massive donkey-dong is an acceptable character concept. Seems odd to cook up a bunch of metaphysical revenge, that's just a bit too on-the-house an intrusive for a game like that.

That said I wasn't really 100% joking with that ATHF clip before. They straight-up murdered a treant who was trying to help, and with plenty of witnesses. Why would the other treants be OK with them passing when they literally just forced one of their friends into a magic wood chipper?


Well, it was ignored and the group went into battle. Five out of Six halflings were killed, and the Treant that tried to help them got caught in a Blade Barrier.

You don't accidentally get "caught" in blade barrier, you either have to walk into it on purpose (assumign the treat didn't do that) or someone has to intentionally cast it in a way that catches them in the area (pretty sure the PCs did that).

At minimum the treants would probably hinder the progress or forbid them from the forest, if not wanting to administer leafy justice in the wooden court (or however treants handle murder)

[BiPolar]

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe you should have the badguy offer them jobs to embarrass them. Wrecking their reputation seems the best thing. If the players don't care about what people think about their characters, then maybe you should adjust your campaign towards the gray and ruthless side of things. Trying to drag them into the "light" isn't going to work out well I suspect.

Not trying to drag into the light (see morality above), but are you saying that in Evil campaigns there are no consequences for being evil?

[Flashy]

They definitely rushed in with the belief the Halflings would die. WHen they were going in, I even said it as DM through the Treant. "Watch the guard and there will be an opportunity." THey didn't even try and talk to find out more. Their full intent from the start was damn the halfings, not our problem.

I admit, I may be annoyed that they didn't even try to free them. But I feel that the consequences should still happen. There was a choice they made, and it was to let the halflings die.

And this was after a session recently where they were given opportunity to learn more about their surroundings which they didn't take advantage of. It cost them the life of a PC. Afterwards, I told them that had they explored and talked with more of the NPCs they could have prevented a lot of that came out. Before this session, I even told one player that this is another "if you don't pay attention, you might die".

That is rather different then. I had the impression they thought killing the golems was the best route to freeing the prisoners, and just been wrong.

I really do think the best way to handle this is to just work out a common ground for the sort of game you want to be playing though. Settling things like this in game can backfire, be unclear, or lead to escalation. What do you do if they decide that they've had enough of treant harassment and decide to burn the whole forest to the ground, for example?

[BiPolar]

Were like the halfings... anyone important? There are really only consequences if someone not the deceased cares if that they were killed, and those inviduals have power.T he PCs were being ***** but given an LE character was allowed in the game that seems to be a strong signal that being a massive donkey-dong is an acceptable character concept. Seems odd to cook up a bunch of metaphysical revenge, that's just a bit too on-the-house an intrusive for a game like that.
THey don't know who was in the cage, they never bothered to look. But the halfling PCs parents were in there. The LE character was a War Cleric of Bane. He's not that evil, but plays one on TV :)



You don't accidentally get "caught" in blade barrier, you either have to walk into it on purpose (assumign the treat didn't do that) or someone has to intentionally cast it in a way that catches them in the area (pretty sure the PCs did that).

At minimum the treants would probably hinder the progress or forbid them from the forest, if not wanting to administer leafy justice in the wooden court (or however treants handle murder)

The War Cleric who cast the Blade Barrier didn't know the Treant was there (only the halfling did, and he didn't tell anybody before rushing in to attack). When he placed the barrier on the table, it went right over where the Treant was.

One other option, rather than forced march, is to slow them down as you say. They are limited in food until the cleric starts burning a 3rd level slot. That's a nicer way rather than giving out exhaustion levels.

[BiPolar]

That is rather different then. I had the impression that had thought killing the golems was the best route to freeing the prisoners, and just been wrong.

I really do think the best way to handle this is to just work out a common ground for the sort of game you want to be playing though. Settling things like this in game can backfire, be unclear, or lead to escalation. What do you do if they decide that they've had enough of treant harassment and decide to burn the whole forest to the ground, for example?

They really just wanted to start the combat. No discussion at all about strategy or tactics. I was certain when the monk/swashbuckler were sneaking in they were scouting. But they weren't, they were only moving in for a faster attack :(

[IShouldntBehere]

Not trying to drag into the light (see morality above), but are you saying that in Evil campaigns there are no consequences for being evil?

Well there are consequences for actions but not necessarily for being evil. You could set a random street urchin on fire for chuckles and there probably aren't much in the way of consequences for that, evil though it be. You step in to stop a public execution of someone who has been false convinced by a powerful leader on purpose for political gains, and that probably has dire consequences despite being a good act.

In a good or heroic campaign there's probably more room wiggle room for precision karma in a way that feels more thematically cohesive and "Fair" on a meta level, but the world probably shouldn't be bending over backwards to punish evil characters in a game where evil is a legitimate character concept.

I mean an evil protagonist may get their due in the very end, but the whole story is usually not about the universe seeing they're punished for every misdeed along the way. In fact they probably get a away with a lot of crap along the way.

[Ravinsild]

Seems to me this is a party of "Might makes Right". If the Halflings were weak enough to get captured, and not strong enough to live through battle then they weren't worth saving anyway. So perhaps just give them more challenges. Make them prove their might. All murderhobos want to do is kill stuff anyway so everyone gets their fun. Murderhobos get to murder and skip all the boring RP, and you get to have your consequences.

[BiPolar]

Let's look at this a different way, from the perspective of those harmed.

Remaining Halfling: He is going to talk with the group about what happened. He will then return back to his people to relay what he saw as well as what the group told him.

Treants: They requested help and offered assistance. Assistance was declined when it mattered and then the group accidentally killed a treant. The other treants in the other saw this and know this.

Based on those two pieces alone, how would the world/wood react?

[BiPolar]

Seems to me this is a party of "Might makes Right". If the Halflings were weak enough to get captured, and not strong enough to live through battle then they weren't worth saving anyway. So perhaps just give them more challenges. Make them prove their might. All murderhobos want to do is kill stuff anyway so everyone gets their fun. Murderhobos get to murder and skip all the boring RP, and you get to have your consequences.

Ultimately this is spot-on. I'm going to spend more time designing the battleground and make this more about combat strategy and tactics with everything else being the fluff that gets you to there.

However, in this case, I do feel that the choices they made should have a consequence. If everyone else here disagrees, then I'll reconsider because y'all are third party voices with no dog in this fight :)

[Battlebooze]

Not trying to drag into the light (see morality above), but are you saying that in Evil campaigns there are no consequences for being evil?

Calling those Character's actions "Evil" might be the heart of the issue. I don't think the characters committed Evil, I think at worst, they were just careless and stupid. They certainly don't deserve a reward for what they did. There's a big difference between not getting a reward and getting actively punished. If you told them, "You're not getting any exp because you failed that encounter." I'd be with you 100%.

Answering your question, usually the consequences of a campaign with dark morality is mayhem and murder, the fun of violating norms and cathartic violence. Sure, there will be consequences for being evil, but there will also be rewards. People don't usually run evil campaigns to teach players lessons.

[Asmotherion]

I recently just completed a session where my group of 4 PCs (alignments: LE, CN, N, CN) just finished a tough fight against a couple of Iron Golems and some Helmed Horrors. On the way to the battle, a Treant told them that the Golems had captured 6 local halflings (one of the PC is a halfling from the region) and that the Golems were cutting down their forest and enlisted their help. The Treant also told them that there were likely other Treants near where they are keeping the Halflings and if they can find them they can help. Basically, trying to help them figure out a way to free the halflings without just a giant murder rampage on the Golems/Horrors.

Once it was clear that was their intention, I had a Treant reach out and stop the halfling from engaging first and said "Wait...watch them and you'll see an opening" (also known as the most heavy handed hint ever.)

Well, it was ignored and the group went into battle. Five out of Six halflings were killed, and the Treant that tried to help them got caught in a Blade Barrier. SO yeah, they killed a Treant (others saw it) and they got most of the halflings killed.

The other (minor) issue is that this is a rotating DM group, so whomever is DMing has their character in play, but really not fully active. So my character is going to suffer the consequences of the group decisions.

Anywho, I'm not sure how to proceed. I was going to set up a conversation between the final living halfling and the group (also exposing that two of the dead halflings are the parents of the halfling in our group to try to force empathy, but this guy is True Neutral and likely will just brush it off.)

There seems to be a need for consequences, but I'm not quite sure what.

The group is Level 11/12 for the most part and they're on their way to a beholder lair. First having to travel through the orest of the Treants.

You can aproach a game in several different ways, and their choice, wile not the "canon" route, was effective to some degree. However, now that the questgiver is dead, they cannot claim any rewards, and they have to face the consequences of their actions. Those consequences can be story-alteration to a "bad ending": for example, the Treant could have been the only one who knew a secret ritual to stop the next BBEG from summoning a foul deity, or could have had the knowlage of a hidden artifact able to negate the powers of the Artifact wielded by the campain's final boss.

Perhaps your group is less interested into a game that emphasises role playing, and is more interested in a hack and slash kind of game; We get the quest, we kill the enemy, we loot the rewards - rince and repeat.

Overall, try to evaluate the situation: Did they have fun slaying everything in their path, or do they expect a consequence to their actions, and a possible plot-twist? Perhaps both. Ultimatelly, the goal is to have fun with everyone, be it by having them run around as merciless psychopaths murdering everyone, or by slaying them in the most gorish way you can imagine.

Also, just a side note, but they are not playing their alignments. A NE character is more focused on what he could gain from a situation, than simple "murder for random fun". TN will still cry at the loss of their relatives. CN would be infuriated from the idea of someone holding someone else prisoner, and would likely do anything in their own power to help that prisoner, especially if they could gain something in the process.

[IShouldntBehere]

Based on those two pieces alone, how would the world/wood react?

This depends on the exact nature of treats in your universe, and what role they play.

Perhaps the Treant woods are naturally quite dangerous. All manner of beasts and monster patrol the place. The treats can influence though not directly control these creatures. Passage through the woods moderately safe because the treats protect travelers, quitely "hiding" them from the monsters. The Treants withdraw their protection leaving them at the mercy of the wilds, including the legendary Rakamba.

Perhaps the Treants are more direct, and on the 2nd watch of the night when most of the groups is sleeping the woods slowly ever-so-subtly begin to close in the group. Either way they are surrounded and must be prepared to either explain themselves or defend themselves (possibly one, then the other), maybe if they notice soon enough their may be room for a harrowing escape from a place where the very land is trying to kill them.

Perhaps the Treants have can influence the paths in the forest the group passes through the woods quickly, easily and without incident only to come out at a location other than intended destination, perhaps even one that does not even appear on the map...

I mean this is a really, really, really broad possibility space.

[Steel Mirror]

However, in this case, I do feel that the choices they made should have a consequence. If everyone else here disagrees, then I'll reconsider because y'all are third party voices with no dog in this fight :)
Consequences are one thing, settling grudges another. I think I was just concerned when people started talking about curses by the gods and necromancers and supernatural slayer monsters being spawned from the ether to take the GM's revenge on these players.

But as we've said, some consequences like the halflings and treants holding a grudge, and people in the future fearing the PCs and not rushing to give them quests, are totally reasonable.

The problem is when you are punishing the players for what they did instead of the characters. Even your players just getting the impression that this is true can ruin your night as things get bogged down in adversarial play. It might even push them towards acting even more thoughtlessly and evil, just to win the contest of wills with the GM. And none of us want this to happen to your crew.

Before you decide on any course of action, ask yourself, "will this lead to us all having fun?" As long as the answer is "yes", I think you're doing fine.

[BiPolar]

I'd very much like to thank everyone for their input.

Based on it, I think I should scale back the Old Testament retribution, but not go so far as a full blessing.

The woods are a dangerous place, especially off the trail. I think I can make the woods a less hospitable place to be for the duration (the treants destroy the path, everyone is in difficult terrain whilst in the woods.) SO they can still follow the trail, but the protection the Treants normally give travellers on the path has been removed for them. The time it takes them will eat up the remaining food supplies and the rest of the trip will have to be supplied by the Cleric.

I'll see how the conversation goes with the final halfling. As long as they don't try and kill him, he'll just return and they'll lose the support of the halflings (which wasn't much to begin with.)

Then just have them continue on their merry way to the Beholder lair and finally to battle the Wizard himself.

As for the disadvantage mechanic, I think I have to let that go. Forcing the players back through the forest to return the loot to the mummy lord seems unfair at this point if they didn't learn about the disadvantage on this fight.

[Contrast]

Let's look at this a different way, from the perspective of those harmed.

Remaining Halfling: He is going to talk with the group about what happened. He will then return back to his people to relay what he saw as well as what the group told him.

Treants: They requested help and offered assistance. Assistance was declined when it mattered and then the group accidentally killed a treant. The other treants in the other saw this and know this.

Based on those two pieces alone, how would the world/wood react?



As I said in my original post, I think you're looking at reputation damage here not any actual plots for revenge.

What did the halfling see? He was being held captive. Some guys turned up and killed his captors. Yes the other hostages died but in the case that no-one else was coming 1/6 is better than 0/6. You've mentioned the treants but they hadn't acted yet - did the halfling even know treant backup was on offer? As worst it seems like the PCs would be unwelcome in town (told theres no room at the inn, refused service at the merchants) - none of this hiring mercanaries or curses from beyond the grave malarky.

I'm going to assume the other treants were scrying or something as if they were close enough to help but just stood and watched it seems they're even more culpable. They may well deny passage through the forest or any assistance but again, assuming this truly was an accident, I don't neccesarily see it going beyond that.

Personally aggrieved relatives may take a more active approach but my concern is that give whats been posted in this thread it does seem more like you're trying to punish the players for playing wrong and then retroactively justify it in game than having the world react realistically to their actions.

I may be off base here but as a case in point - had you planned for the captured halfings to be your PCs parents before they were dead? If so, why did the PC not recognise his parents before the attack?


Edit - I guess another question that is relevant is what the halflings were hostage for and how did they die. Were they going to be sacrificed or were they just being held for ransom? Did the golems off them or were they caught in an AoE from the party? That would probably significantly colour the reaction to the news.

[Battlebooze]

Let's look at this a different way, from the perspective of those harmed.

Remaining Halfling: He is going to talk with the group about what happened. He will then return back to his people to relay what he saw as well as what the group told him.

Treants: They requested help and offered assistance. Assistance was declined when it mattered and then the group accidentally killed a treant. The other treants in the other saw this and know this.

Based on those two pieces alone, how would the world/wood react?

It would make perfect sense for the Treants to watch this obviously dangerous group to see if they are destructive to their woods. As long as the characters aren't actively destructive, I'd just have the Treant's hang back. The Treants should NOT hinder the characters, they should try to get them through the woods as fast as possible! Get those jerks out of our woods!

As for the Halfling survivor, is he really going to place the blame the characters more than the nasty Golems? Still, he might be inclined to spread the word that the Characters are heartless if they don't show any signs of regret over what happened.

[BiPolar]

As I said in my original post, I think you're looking at reputation damage here not any actual plots for revenge.

What did the halfling see? He was being held captive. Some guys turned up and killed his captors. Yes the other hostages died but in the case that no-one else was coming 1/6 is better than 0/6. You've mentioned the treants but they hadn't acted yet - did the halfling even know treant backup was on offer? As worst it seems like the PCs would be unwelcome in town (told theres no room at the inn, refused service at the merchants) - none of this hiring mercanaries or curses from beyond the grave malarky.

I'm going to assume the other treants were scrying or something as if they were close enough to help but just stood and watched it seems they're even more culpable. They may well deny passage through the forest or any assistance but again, assuming this truly was an accident, I don't neccesarily see it going beyond that.

Personally aggrieved relatives may take a more active approach but my concern is that give whats been posted in this thread it does seem more like you're trying to punish the players for playing wrong and then retroactively justify it in game than having the world react realistically to their actions.

I may be off base here but as a case in point - had you planned for the captured halfings to be your PCs parents before they were dead? If so, why did the PC not recognise his parents before the attack?
He didn't recognize them because he rolled an 8 on his perception. He was hidden in the woods looking out into the clearing where the open-air cages stood.

As for the Treants not assisting, the one tried and was pushed away. Then seconds later it was caught in a blade barrier.

I definitely am sorry if it was coming off like I'm trying to punish the players - and why i'm listening and changing my plans based off of feedback here. I think my thread title probably set an expectation for my mindset and it should really have been "In-world consequences for PC actions that could be perceived as negative by aggrieved parties" But that's a little wordy :)

[Battlebooze]

I'd very much like to thank everyone for their input.

Based on it, I think I should scale back the Old Testament retribution, but not go so far as a full blessing.

The woods are a dangerous place, especially off the trail. I think I can make the woods a less hospitable place to be for the duration (the treants destroy the path, everyone is in difficult terrain whilst in the woods.) SO they can still follow the trail, but the protection the Treants normally give travellers on the path has been removed for them. The time it takes them will eat up the remaining food supplies and the rest of the trip will have to be supplied by the Cleric.

I'll see how the conversation goes with the final halfling. As long as they don't try and kill him, he'll just return and they'll lose the support of the halflings (which wasn't much to begin with.)

Then just have them continue on their merry way to the Beholder lair and finally to battle the Wizard himself.

As for the disadvantage mechanic, I think I have to let that go. Forcing the players back through the forest to return the loot to the mummy lord seems unfair at this point if they didn't learn about the disadvantage on this fight.

This result sounds pretty balanced to me.
The players certainly aren't getting any reward for their failure, and they might lose some face if they don't show some remorse to the survivor. Now if they kill the halfling survivor just to cover up their mistake... Then maybe having a ghost following them might be fitting... "They murdered me.... Killers...."

[Ravinsild]

Ultimately this is spot-on. I'm going to spend more time designing the battleground and make this more about combat strategy and tactics with everything else being the fluff that gets you to there.

However, in this case, I do feel that the choices they made should have a consequence. If everyone else here disagrees, then I'll reconsider because y'all are third party voices with no dog in this fight :)

Oh I meant the consequences would be fighting a forest of Treants. Might makes Right. If you're strong enough to kill 1 Treant you should be stronger enough to kill them all. Stuff like that.

To elaborate: Consequences are angry Treants. While it may be BAD for the characters it might be FUN for the players.

Players: Get to kill more stuff! yay murderhoboing!

Characters: Get to fight a gauntlet of angry tree people, that's not...the best thing ever probably but at least the players get to do their playstyle. Plus it could be a cool chase scene or something trying to flee through the forest chased by living trees, never knowing which tree might be alive and spring out to get you!

Action thriller chase movie stuff. That seems murderhobo-like for an action gamer and you know...consequences for their actions.

Also you know something with the halflings too.

Edit: I was trying to think of something that would be fun (Chase Scene of angry Treants stomping after you as you scramble through the forest hacking and slashing your way to freedom) for a murder hobo but still feel "dangerous" and "bad" because what if they are low on resources or otherwise don't have all the spells/abilities/encounter powers they need. It could make for some cool action movie type stunts and be fun for an action-oriented player but still carry RP weight and feel like the world is alive...and mad!

[RumoCrytuf]

I recently just completed a session where my group of 4 PCs (alignments: LE, CN, N, CN) just finished a tough fight against a couple of Iron Golems and some Helmed Horrors. On the way to the battle, a Treant told them that the Golems had captured 6 local halflings (one of the PC is a halfling from the region) and that the Golems were cutting down their forest and enlisted their help. The Treant also told them that there were likely other Treants near where they are keeping the Halflings and if they can find them they can help. Basically, trying to help them figure out a way to free the halflings without just a giant murder rampage on the Golems/Horrors.

Once it was clear that was their intention, I had a Treant reach out and stop the halfling from engaging first and said "Wait...watch them and you'll see an opening" (also known as the most heavy handed hint ever.)

Well, it was ignored and the group went into battle. Five out of Six halflings were killed, and the Treant that tried to help them got caught in a Blade Barrier. SO yeah, they killed a Treant (others saw it) and they got most of the halflings killed.

The other (minor) issue is that this is a rotating DM group, so whomever is DMing has their character in play, but really not fully active. So my character is going to suffer the consequences of the group decisions.

Anywho, I'm not sure how to proceed. I was going to set up a conversation between the final living halfling and the group (also exposing that two of the dead halflings are the parents of the halfling in our group to try to force empathy, but this guy is True Neutral and likely will just brush it off.)

There seems to be a need for consequences, but I'm not quite sure what.

The group is Level 11/12 for the most part and they're on their way to a beholder lair. First having to travel through the orest of the Treants.

The tales of their Murderhoboness spread throughout the land. They become unwelcome in most towns and cities. Being forced to live in the wilderness. The Gods, seeing their evil actions, curse them with a run of bad luck. They are given a mission in which they are to redeem their actions. A mission not of violence, but peace. Should these adventurers redeem themselves, their curse will be lifted.

Either that, or summon Tiamat to roast them.

[BiPolar]

Oh I meant the consequences would be fighting a forest of Treants. Might makes Right. If you're strong enough to kill 1 Treant you should be stronger enough to kill them all. Stuff like that.

To elaborate: Consequences are angry Treants. While it may be BAD for the characters it might be FUN for the players.

Players: Get to kill more stuff! yay murderhoboing!

Characters: Get to fight a gauntlet of angry tree people, that's not...the best thing ever probably but at least the players get to do their playstyle. Plus it could be a cool chase scene or something trying to flee through the forest chased by living trees, never knowing which tree might be alive and spring out to get you!

Action thriller chase movie stuff. That seems murderhobo-like for an action gamer and you know...consequences for their actions.

Also you know something with the halflings too.

Also not a horrible idea...although I like the angry orchard messing with them as they try and get out. And I want to move things forward to the beholder lair ASAP :)

[GorogIrongut]

Lolol... It appears that my DM'ing style is a little more in your face than yours is. My players know that I like to have fun too and that I'm likely to go with something that'll have them cacking their pants.

Just last session, the Welf Druid was stupid enough to pass her investigation check and found inside the lining of the leather bag, a single quill and a vial of odd liquid. She decided to start writing messages on the pieces of paper covered in insane gibberish inside the leather bag. For the next half hour I subtly ramped up the signs that she'd been possessed by the person who'd been writing the insane gibberish.

By the time I was done, they were too afraid to look at/check anything. So much so that they missed the incredibly large, easy to see second clue to overcoming the BBEG; because they were afraid that if they touched anything it would trigger more possessions.

I personally like the Slasher because it's got nothing to do with good or evil. Your players acted in such a way that someone felt they'd been done wrong. The person could be good or evil and it still doesn't matter. The characters could have actually been doing their best and well within the bounds of accepted behaviour and it still wouldn't matter. Because someone felt mistreated/maligned.

In the end it leaves the players aware that there are potentially interesting and even harsh consequences to everything they do... and they hopefully choose from that point on to think things through a little more clearly.

p.s. I also adore the idea of a slasher because it would be so atmospherically freaky. You don't even have to have just bad things happen. The Welf that got possessed was more freaked out by the good things that started to happen. The moment she started to feel good, to feel like she was on top of the world, was the moment that she knew something was seriously, seriously wrong.
The look on the player's face was priceless when I told her that she suddenly felt epic. The kind of epic you get in cinema when you've just defeated all of your enemies and as you stand there after the final blow, the wind chooses to blow in such a way that your cape billows out and your hair trails behind you like you're in a Pantene commercial.
And then in a quiet voice with a half smirk, you lean in and say, 'All is well in the world. Absolutely nothing bad could happen to you right now.'
p.s.s. I agree that there should be consequences with the halflings and the treants and all that other jazz. But none of that will be as fun as taking them through roller coaster ride of your favourite slasher/horror icon. That means you should do both, but have the halflings and the treants temper their distaste when they see how hounded and pathetic your players are courtesy of the slasher.

[Thrudd]

You've got a group of neutral and evil characters, two of whom actually worship Bane! And you're surprised they don't care about hostages or collateral damage?

There doesn't need to be "punishment" for what happened. Just reasonable in-world responses to what happened.

The halflings maybe not exactly thrilled, but they did try and managed to save one of them. So they don't get a great reputation, but maybe one ally, and a neutralish reputation among the halflings in general. The treants also won't be allies for life, but they did stop the golems from chopping down trees. So they will have a neutral reputation with the forest, at worst.

You shouldn't punish players for roleplaying their selfish neutral/evil characters. That they will even bother to do something slightly helpful to others without promise of huge rewards would seem unlikely and maybe a bit out of character. That they would do so with concern for collateral damage I would not expect at all.

If you don't want murderhobos, make them play good aligned characters.

[BiPolar]

You've got a group of neutral and evil characters, two of whom actually worship Bane! And you're surprised they don't care about hostages or collateral damage?

There doesn't need to be "punishment" for what happened. Just reasonable in-world responses to what happened.

The halflings maybe not exactly thrilled, but they did try and managed to save one of them. So they don't get a great reputation, but maybe one ally, and a neutralish reputation among the halflings in general. The treants also won't be allies for life, but they did stop the golems from chopping down trees. So they will have a neutral reputation with the forest, at worst.

You shouldn't punish players for roleplaying their selfish neutral/evil characters. That they will even bother to do something slightly helpful to others without promise of huge rewards would seem unlikely and maybe a bit out of character. That they would do so with concern for collateral damage I would not expect at all.

If you don't want murderhobos, make them play good aligned characters.

The halfling that survived, did so with no help from the adventurers. He was in a separate cage. The main cage, that the adventurers dimension doored into was opened by the Iron Golems who then had a nice grouping of everyone in one contained place...perfect for their poison breath. Halflings dead, adventurers hurt. The 2nd cage was largely ignored by everyone.

I apologize again, but my goal was real in-world responses, not punishment from me. I'm sorry if it came across as the latter.

And at least two of the characters, including the Halfling, both want to be famous. So, this isn't exactly the way to do it. The problem is the other one is my character, and I'm trying not to influence their decisions because I know what's going on.

And yes, I"m sure the Treants are pleased as punch that the golems are gone, even if it was at the expense of one of their brothers who got chopped to pieces because the adventurers didn't heed their words.

But anywho, I think i've got a reasonable plan that doesn't do too much to the characters or players.

As for the slasher, I think I'll save that for another campaign. But I absolutely love it.

[Sigreid]

Finally off work and can comment.

As I understand it the situation is there is a party of selfish to ruthless characters played by players that you know prefer swift decisive action to RP and diplomacy that when provided an opportunity to have an easier time completing their objective while making allies of the local halflings and treeants (and by extension likely other forest beings) decided that they didn't care about the allies and would go it alone. As a result several of the potential allies died, including one that was killed by a reasonable action taken by one of the characters when you consider that he was unaware the potential ally was there.

In my opinion, their actions were totally in character and not unreasonable. I really think you're mostly upset that they didn't follow your plan. That being said, yes there will be consequences for their actions. It should not be vengeful spirits or treeants. They didn't do anything that warrants vengeance. The logical consequence is that word will spread that they are reckless and unreliable, potentially dangerous allies. This will isolate them, making it hard for them to find help of any kind.

On a side note, it sounds like you were pushing them with a steam shovel. There are certain personality types (like mine) that violently resist being pushed in a direction, and it may well have been your super strong hints that turned them to the path they chose.

Also, rotating DMs is fun. My group does that. But if you are going to do that, you have to be prepared for the party to get your character killed when you are DMing.

[MBControl]

Murderhoboism . . . it's tough to cure.

I find that punishments can work against the situation at times, so though I'm not saying not to, I will present an alternate that can also be used.

I like to start to teach the party that non-violent options should be weighed equally. To do this, you give them plenty of smaller situations where the non-violent course is obvious, and reward them well for making the right choice. This will implant an option at least in the players mind, not killing could equal cool loot/gold.

In more tense and important situations, I make clear immediate punishments MAY occur if not approached in the right way. A great example is a hostage situation. "Sure you can kill me, but not before I kill your sister." Not to prevent them from killing things, but to make them think about it first. Now that they have been rewarded handsomely previously, they should at least pause to think about it.

When you go in and smash all the bad guys, you feel like you did really good, and achieved something. To then get punished for that a lot, might not sit well with some players. Creating a pattern of behavior early MIGHT curb the issue somewhat.

Again, not saying don't punish, but both things instead.

[Hrugner]

Do the players think this pocket universe is a real place, or is there room to suspect that it's all a fantasy and none of these people are real? Also, with the halfling being from this pocket universe, what does that mean for the rest of the story?

For this sort of thing I'd recommend having a now vacant halfling inn along the side of the road in the forest. With the inn's owners dead in the massacre the inn hasn't been kept up, investigation would show a recently dead halfling infant and a stock of alchemical supplies and potions ruined by a CR appropriate animal hopped up on potion.

[Malifice]

Shouldn't the foolish Treant's also get punished for their poor choice of saviors?

They already have been.

One of them is dead, along with 5 of the 6 hostages.

Not exactly the best reputation for the party to have, and I assume the Treants at a minimum regret getting the PCs involved.

Of course, why the Treants (and the DM) thought it was a good idea to place a 'work with CG treats to save the innocent hobbits' quest before a party featuring LE Banites (and selfish mercenaries) is beyond me.

My LE Banite would have responded with 'If they're not strong enough to defend themselves, they deserve to die. Plus; who cares if some Hobbits get slaughtered. Find yourself another group of patsies Tree-man'. My CN mercenary would have demanded sizeable payment (in advance), and would have demanded the freedom to do it his way, without any interference from his employer.

Of course, that should all have consequences. Being an evil or selfish bastard always does.

It was just a curious choice of a quest. I cant see any reason why the PCs in question (selfish and evil alignments, at least two people who willingly follow the god of tyranny and evil) would care to engage in it. Really, the Treants got all they deserved for working with such selfish and evil monsters.

Lie down with dogs and all that.

[Malifice]

Well there are consequences for actions but not necessarily for being evil. You could set a random street urchin on fire for chuckles and there probably aren't much in the way of consequences for that, evil though it be.

Yeah... I dont suggest trying this at home. You'll probably be arrested for murder.

Why should the campaign world be any different?

Also, why are there no consequences from your companions? What bunch of 5 random people from different walks of life, different culures, and different religions, with radically different backgrounds, banding together to explore and adventure (PCs) are all universally cool with one of their number just suddenly burning a homeless child to death for fun?

My LE Banite Paladin would (quite literally) butcher a fellow PC for such a thing. He was an orphan once. He may be a fascist who engages in pogroms, tyranny and torture, but he's not a monster.

;)


You step in to stop a public execution of someone who has been false convinced by a powerful leader on purpose for political gains, and that probably has dire consequences despite being a good act.


Depends on the role of Karma (and the Gods) in your universe. Is the prime material a place where Gods have no say in their domains? Karma (and actions having consequences) could very well be due to the machinations thereof. Certainly in Faerun when you die your alignment and deity dictate your final reward (or punishment), and the canon suggests that Gods have some intrest and cosmic involvement in their portfolios.

Torm in particular might orchestrate things so that such a person in your example above escapes those dire consequences (or even is assured of a place in his realm on death, for an eternity of reward for his noble sacrifice in life).

Maybe the universe is set up in a way where good always finds a way to triumph over evil, or (Krynn) where evil is forever doomed to turn in on itself and devour itself from within (and if cosmic balance one way or the other is disturbed, the universe and the Gods themselves intervene).

In short, in addition to being a good narrative tool (it's used in most media and art, where the bad guy always gets his comeuppance, and the good guy gets the girl) it might also form part of the cosmic reality of the game universe in one way or the other.

In a universe that features actual Gods fighting over souls and actions, objective morality, and something called Alignment (i.e most DnD settings) this is more than feasable, and indeed I argue the probable assumed state of affairs.

Of course, maybe your campaign universe is totally nihlistic where there is no reason for anything, nothing matters, the universe is indifferent and so forth.

[Malifice]

But anywho, I think i've got a reasonable plan that doesn't do too much to the characters or players.

In the future I'd probably give them quests that are more.. alignment appropriate. I have no idea why they even accepted this one!

Remember one of your PCs has the same alignment as a Pit Fiend. What would you expect a Pit Fiend to say to a request (by a Treant) to save a bunch of Hobbits? And what methods would he use even if he were to accept for some reason?

I fully support your call to impose consequences for their actions though

Suggestions:

Next quest, have them scouting for vital information and be told that 'A halfling friend of mine knows this information... havent seen him around for some time though... his uncle is a powerful wizard'. Of course, that halfling is now dead thanks to the PCs. This makes the next mission harder for them (while it's fresh in their minds) as a short term consequence.

Also, for a longer term consequence this same halfling wizard is furious at the treants for hiring a bunch of incompetent, dangerous and selfish/ evil monsters to rescue his young nephew, blaming the treants and PCs for what happened.

This halfling is rich, connected, [and an X level Wizard]. He starts attacking the Treants in vengance and to recover his nephews body to have it raised . In response a Archdruid friendly to the treants reaches an agreement with this Wizard to hand over his nephews body, and hunt down the PCs to pay for the Raise Dead in exchange for a truce between the two factions. Desperate, he calls in support to back him up.

Next thing the PCs know, they've got an Ancients Paladin, Druid, Ranger and a bunch of mooks ambushing them to capture them to strip the 1000gp (for the cost of the resurrection) off them.

Killing this lot, simply angers the Archdruid (the Druid in the encounter just killed by the PCs was his good friend and apprentice) who becomes an enemy for life and swears vengance on the party.

He reincarnates the Druid. who comes back in a (CR deadly) new form, and just as angry at the party.

[Battlebooze]

I had an amusing idea you might consider. There could be another party of good adventurers running around in the local area your players are in. By coincidence, the good party looks very similar to your player's characters, enough to confuse Treants. Invoke verisimilitude and there you go.

This group of heroic NPC's would not be happy hearing how "they" screwed up and got some innocent halflings killed. In one stroke you can create some rivals with motivation and turn the incident from lemons into lemonade.

[Sigreid]

The real mistake by the party is violating the golden rule. No live witnesses. :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

This particular case doesn't look like murderhoboism - they went in after the golems that had captured the halflings, and while the tactics involved were staggeringly poor the party wasn't intentionally doing harm.

That matters for their reputation. They're going to be known to be incredibly sloppy, and that will spread. Those particularly close to the accidentally killed treant might seek vengeance. The remaining halflings probably won't retaliate, but they're not going to be in a big hurry to offer aid either.

The reputation is the biggest part of this though. There's still specific things that people familiar with the party might seek them out for - if they just need to wreak havoc and spread blood and carnage among their enemies, hey, the PCs are great at that. Anything requiring a soft touch? Not so much. Anything involving prisoners or hostages? Heck no.


Yeah... I dont suggest trying this at home. You'll probably be arrested for murder.

Why should the campaign world be any different?

In this case, it's because there's likely not necessarily the apparatus to arrest them. Military force might well be concentrated in the private armies of nobles, private guards of the rich merchant class, so on and so forth. There's a real possibility that they wouldn't care. It's not a modern setting.

With that said - the absence of a centralized force also tended to manifest in very different societal attitudes towards vengeance, glory seeking activity, and similar. It only takes one person who used to be an orphan, still feels affiliated, and is in a good position to seek vengeance against the people who very publicly lit an orphan on fire. Said vengeance also isn't too likely to take the form of an arrest attempt. Then there's the matter of being a target for more conventional PC types - sure, there's likely no reward in it, but as this whole post has emphasized reputation matters. Being the people who hunted down the psycopath who lit an orphan on fire? That's not a bad look.

[Malifice]

The real mistake by the party is violating the golden rule. No live witnesses. :smallbiggrin:

That rule is only applicable to LG Paladins, only if the witnesses are children, and only if done for 'the greater good'.

[Malifice]

In this case, it's because there's likely not necessarily the apparatus to arrest them. Military force might well be concentrated in the private armies of nobles, private guards of the rich merchant class, so on and so forth. There's a real possibility that they wouldn't care. It's not a modern setting.

Presuming roughly analogous societies to Earth, what place can you think of where a bunch of 4-5 itenerant casteless armed foreign mercenaries can just... waltz in to a town or villiage and murder a child and expect no response?

Try it in a Viking villiage (or anywhere else in the middle, dark or feudal ages) and see how far it gets you.

Most likely, a few guards (or commoners with picemeal weapons) seek to arrest the PCs (or inform the local lord who dispatches his own men to do so) to bring them to justice (hanging most likely).

The PCs can (of course) just slaughter these law abiding and goodly (low CR) citizens (presuming the PCs are evilly aligned), but that would be simply met with a larger armed force, the death sentence in these (and allied) lands, and almost certainly (much higher level) a good aligned NPC advenuring party being hired to tbring them to justice.

Because in my campaign when monsters (and this definition now includes the PCs) run around murdering people in civilized lands, and they're too tough for the lord and his men at arms to handle, the accepted response is to hire adventurers to deal with them. Usually via a meeting in a tavern, with the lord covered in a cloak, and with a high enough perception check by the NPCs noticing the lord is wearing fine clothes under his cloak.

If the PCs were heroes, they'd be those guys doing the hunting. In this case, they're the bad guys.

The PCs are outlaws and fugitives now. They should probably find somewhere to hide out, like a neighboring dungeon in the wilderness. The PCs should probably ally with the local monsters, and ensure their saftey by having these monsters fill the rooms closer to the entrance. Probably giving them coins and other treasure to keep the PCs safe. From there the PCs can continue to plot their evil.

The PCs should also probably change their names to BEEG or similar... seeing as thats what they are now.

[Jarlhen]

Who is the God of nature and stuff like that? Yeah, there you go pal, vengeance paladins on their trail. Assuming this world has other actors and there were witnesses (which you mention) your party has committed a massive crime. They're going to be hunted down for it. Doesn't matter if there's a law or not. There's always someone who doesn't enjoy halflings being randomly murdered by adventurers. Remember that adventurers are very seldom welcome where they go. They're a real pain in the ass for most communities. For every helpful party of adventurers there's 20 that cause trouble. Patience is thin. So when a group of them murders a bunch of friendly people, someone somewhere will hire people to hunt them down.

In my campaigns, if stuff like that happens and there are witnesses, you're no longer doing the main campaign quest stuff. You're a fugitive now, you will be hunted down. Bounties will go up. Other parties will look for you. Paladins will start coming after you. The word spreads quickly. And it's very unfortunate because you've just ruined the whole campaign. I am uncompromising when it comes to consequences. Imo you might as well just pick up a book if you're playing a game without consequences.

But it all depends on your world and the exact circumstances.

[Knaight]

Presuming roughly analogous societies to Earth, what place can you think of where a bunch of 4-5 itenerant casteless armed foreign mercenaries can just... waltz in to a town or villiage and murder a child and expect no response?

First, if you read the rest of the post you'll notice a whole bunch of non-arrest responses (including the counter adventuring party). Secondly, in the specific context of someone without family ties you can pick any number of societies. Take various societies that did a lot of cattle raiding, which included people dying in their defense. It wasn't uncommon for the only real defenses to be families retaliating in vengeance, and while clan structures generally made sure that just about everyone had a family someone who didn't was likely to be out of luck.

[Malifice]

First, if you read the rest of the post you'll notice a whole bunch of non-arrest responses (including the counter adventuring party). Secondly, in the specific context of someone without family ties you can pick any number of societies. Take various societies that did a lot of cattle raiding, which included people dying in their defense. It wasn't uncommon for the only real defenses to be families retaliating in vengeance, and while clan structures generally made sure that just about everyone had a family someone who didn't was likely to be out of luck.

Most (all feudal, dark and middle ages) societies have a lord, who is obligated to defend his people (all the way down to the serfs). Most likely this would be a landed Knight in the middle ages. Who would be answerable to a Baron, who would answer to the next rung up and so forth.

About your only hope in a medieval (feudal) society was if the person you killed was themselves an outlaw or outcast. Being outside the feudal hierarchy, killing them wasnt as big a deal (still a crime, but the lord doesnt have the same obligations). If the person was an agent of the lord (a tax man or similar) youre assured of being hunted.

Should a freeman or foreigner enter a medieval villiage and kill a serf, he would almost certainly be tracked down by the lord and made to pay (the Serf was the lords property firstly, and secondly, youve gotta keep the other Serfs morale up - they tend to get antsy when strangers can just walk into town and cut one down and the local Lord does jack all about it). You would (at a minimum) be required to compensate the lord for the destruction of his property, and (depending on the lord) would also likely be flogged at a minimum or suffer some other kind of punishment (to keep the other Serfs happy, and as a public display of the Lords authority).

In a late feudal society (or advanced earlier one, like the roman republic) killing a beggar on the street would get you punished (unless you were one of the upper classes, in which case you could pay your way out of it).

Seeing as punishments back then were usually something along the line of getting body parts cut off you, slavery or branding at the lower end of the scale, to crucifixion, impalment, hanging and worse at the upper end, this is not a good thing for the offender.

Its possible that you could just set a beggar on fire and face little repurcussions, but highly implausable in any form of agrarian society I can think of with both a developed legal code and political institutions.

People tend to have problems with strange foreign people coming over to where they live and murdering locals and/or kids. Its why we build walls and all that.

[Malifice]

I'll just add that of course some societies could sanction the killing of the homeless (either as a general rule, or as a might makes right approach).

CE, and even LE societies could certainly have such systems in place (they'd operate very differently, but the effect would be the same).

Without getting too political, see whats happening in the Phillipenes at the moment. And thats a modern society.

[Herobizkit]

On the surface, this 'punishment' the IP suggests seems to be coming from an OOC personal slight.

The players didn't handle the situation like the OP would have and the OP's character was part of the debacle. Now that the OP is the DM, he feels the need to reprimand the characters for their actions. This is an abuse of power and I would call them on it at my own table.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be "consequences" for their actions, because actions have consequences when the PC's are involved; they're what drives the narrative, so anything they do should have at least some impact to someone or something.

You say the halflings and a Treant is dead? I'll bet the Unseelie Fey would be super-stoked about that. They'd probably want someone like the PC's in their debt/control.

It's tough to do a continuous narrative with multiple DM's shaping the story, as each DM can only control so much. I'd suggest switching to an episodic-style game and have your own "mini-campaign" in between the other DM's. That way, only the things your players do when YOU DM need to be addressed. :)

[Kurt Kurageous]

I woulda had a bullette spring up and EAT the last halfling.

Seriously, NOW how you gonna collect that reward?!? If you'd had ALL of them, you wouldn't BE in this situation!!

[Pex]

I recently just completed a session where my group of 4 PCs (alignments: LE, CN, N, CN)

The players aren't interested in being goody-goody heroes, hence the refusal to take the hint. You want to run a campaign where the party are goody-goody heroes. Ask them if they are willing to do so as a separate campaign when it's your turn to DM. If yes, problem solved. If no, ask yourself if you are willing to run a game where the party are not goody-goody heroes. If yes, adapt accordingly. If no, just be a player.

[Contrast]

The halfling that survived, did so with no help from the adventurers. He was in a separate cage. The main cage, that the adventurers dimension doored into was opened by the Iron Golems who then had a nice grouping of everyone in one contained place...perfect for their poison breath. Halflings dead, adventurers hurt. The 2nd cage was largely ignored by everyone.

To go back to the edit from my earlier post - why were the halflings prisoners? If they were going to be killed anyway or were otherwise in for an undesirable fate (and the other halflings were killed in an AoE from the golems that also hit the party), the remaining halfling might not be that angry that the PCs got the other halflings killed, particularly if he doesn't know that there was another option.

To put it another way, I'm imagining if I was being kept as a slave and a passerby attacked the person keeping me as a slave. The slave owner threw a grenade which caught the other slaves and the passby in an explosion but he survived and killed the slave owner before freeing me. My immediate reaction would be 'Thank god you saved me!' not 'You bastard you got them all killed, I hate you'. I may well be distraught at their deaths and my opinion might be very different if I knew the passerby had bungled in despite the warnings of a nearby police officer that he would come back with reinforcements but if I don't know those things I don't know them :smalltongue:

Of course his opinion of them would still be significantly coloured by how they act from here and from what you've said they're likely to act like ***** so *shrugs*

[Mellack]

The halfling that survived, did so with no help from the adventurers. He was in a separate cage. The main cage, that the adventurers dimension doored into was opened by the Iron Golems who then had a nice grouping of everyone in one contained place...perfect for their poison breath. Halflings dead, adventurers hurt. The 2nd cage was largely ignored by everyone.

I apologize again, but my goal was real in-world responses, not punishment from me. I'm sorry if it came across as the latter.

And at least two of the characters, including the Halfling, both want to be famous. So, this isn't exactly the way to do it. The problem is the other one is my character, and I'm trying not to influence their decisions because I know what's going on.

And yes, I"m sure the Treants are pleased as punch that the golems are gone, even if it was at the expense of one of their brothers who got chopped to pieces because the adventurers didn't heed their words.

But anywho, I think i've got a reasonable plan that doesn't do too much to the characters or players.

As for the slasher, I think I'll save that for another campaign. But I absolutely love it.

So in other words, the party did not kill any halflings, the golems did. They were just not able to save them. Not a great outcome, but really no reason for the halfling tribe to be against the party. At least they took some action, which seems to be more than the treants or tribe did.
The death of the treant was bad, but was accidental. The caster did not know they were there. Friendly fire does happen. The treants should probably be pretty cool on the party, but not openly hostile.
Overall, it seems to me that the group was hired/asked to go stop the golems and they succeeded, just at a higher cost than was hoped. One more halfling was freed than without them. Not as good as 6 but better than none. Not much to reward there, but not to punish either.

[Sigreid]

The bottom line is the party committed no crimes, and based on the information given behaved exactly as you should have expected them to, just not how you wanted them to. So again, worst outcome for the party should be a developing reputation for being reckless and dangerous. Hire for destroy missions only. Do not send them after anything or anyone you would like to see in one piece.

[JellyPooga]

The bottom line is the party committed no crimes

Except the "accidental" death of a Treant.

Party: "Sorry Treebeard, we didn't do it on purpose; he just sort of got in the way"
Treebeard: "Oh ok then, no harm done by your careless slaughter of a friend I've had since before you were born"

...is a conversation that will never happen without some extreme sarcasm. The party has comitted a crime against the Treants (namely manslaughter at best, if not murder) and they're in the domain of those self-same Treants. Some Treants might be forgiving because the party was "trying their best". Others will not be so lenient and be looking for justice. You do not want to mess with a Treant on his home turf. You've read LotR, right? Yeah...be afraid of the trees...be very afraid...

[Sigreid]

Except the "accidental" death of a Treant.

Party: "Sorry Treebeard, we didn't do it on purpose; he just sort of got in the way"
Treebeard: "Oh ok then, no harm done by your careless slaughter of a friend I've had since before you were born"

...is a conversation that will never happen without some extreme sarcasm. The party has comitted a crime against the Treants (namely manslaughter at best, if not murder) and they're in the domain of those self-same Treants. Some Treants might be forgiving because the party was "trying their best". Others will not be so lenient and be looking for justice. You do not want to mess with a Treant on his home turf. You've read LotR, right? Yeah...be afraid of the trees...be very afraid...

I disagree. The treant chose to sneak into an area where it knew violence was going to happen. The party cleric didn't target the treant and was not in a position to know that it was in the area of effect and took a reasonable combat option. None of this is to say that the treants won't be pissy with the party and may not be hostile, but they aren't "guilty" in this instance. Given their alignments and apparent play-style, they are most likely guilty as sin for other crimes. Just not this one.

[RickAllison]

I disagree. The treant chose to sneak into an area where it knew violence was going to happen. The party cleric didn't target the treant and was not in a position to know that it was in the area of effect and took a reasonable combat option. None of this is to say that the treants won't be pissy with the party and may not be hostile, but they aren't "guilty" in this instance. Given their alignments and apparent play-style, they are most likely guilty as sin for other crimes. Just not this one.

Indeed. This would be like a journalist getting killed in a war zone because they wanted a first-hand account of the enemy's side and so went undercover. The identity of the deceased would take longer to figure out, but someone who places themselves within the line of fire and without notification of doing so should not be grounds for retribution.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree. The treant chose to sneak into an area where it knew violence was going to happen. The party cleric didn't target the treant and was not in a position to know that it was in the area of effect and took a reasonable combat option. None of this is to say that the treants won't be pissy with the party and may not be hostile, but they aren't "guilty" in this instance. Given their alignments and apparent play-style, they are most likely guilty as sin for other crimes. Just not this one.


Indeed. This would be like a journalist getting killed in a war zone because they wanted a first-hand account of the enemy's side and so went undercover. The identity of the deceased would take longer to figure out, but someone who places themselves within the line of fire and without notification of doing so should not be grounds for retribution.

Really? Really?

The PCs have rocked in, they're no part of whatever society the Treants might have, they've actively killed a member of that society, accidental or not, with witnesses and you don't think that society is well within its rights to exact some kind of retribution?

If they take the effort to try and defend their actions in whatever passes for a court of law for the Treants, yeah, maybe they should be allowed get away with it on the whole, but even then there may be outlying sections of the Treant community that might seek revenge (such as close friends or family). That's assuming this group actually seeks to justify the death they have actively caused...which I doubt they will.

It's not like we're talking about someone that got killed by a bad guy while the PCs tried to save them (like with the halflings)...this is a Treant that got killed by a PC because of their carelessness. They're directly analogous to a vigilante that's shot a bystander trying to stop a bank robber; sure they might have been trying to do a good thing, but have gone about it all the wrong way and are liable to have some come-uppance, one way or another.

[Thrudd]

The halfling that survived, did so with no help from the adventurers. He was in a separate cage. The main cage, that the adventurers dimension doored into was opened by the Iron Golems who then had a nice grouping of everyone in one contained place...perfect for their poison breath. Halflings dead, adventurers hurt. The 2nd cage was largely ignored by everyone.

I apologize again, but my goal was real in-world responses, not punishment from me. I'm sorry if it came across as the latter.

And at least two of the characters, including the Halfling, both want to be famous. So, this isn't exactly the way to do it. The problem is the other one is my character, and I'm trying not to influence their decisions because I know what's going on.

And yes, I"m sure the Treants are pleased as punch that the golems are gone, even if it was at the expense of one of their brothers who got chopped to pieces because the adventurers didn't heed their words.

But anywho, I think i've got a reasonable plan that doesn't do too much to the characters or players.

As for the slasher, I think I'll save that for another campaign. But I absolutely love it.

From your description, I don't think the players did anything wrong, nothing deserving of any extreme or negative responses from NPCs or the world at large. They made a tactical error that caused the partial failure of one of the mission objectives. They succeeding at the primary objective of stopping the golems. Things would have worse had they not intervened. If that were not the case, the treants would not have bothered to ask for help, they would have dealt with the golems themselves, right?

So, despite their alignments, your players did a good deed and were mostly successful. The only thing they didn't do was pay attention to the treant's tactical advice (which, why would they? If the treants knew how to deal with the bad guys, why hadn't they done it themselves?). I don't think they can be blamed for the other treant's death, if they didn't attack it purposefully. Also, how would the players know the golems were willing to kill their captives? Why were they captives in the first place, if they were just going to be killed?

The result will be some treants that now know the PCs as hasty and aggressive types (if there were even any surviving treants that saw what happened), and a Halfling that knows them as badasses who killed the golems that had captured him. I doubt he'd blame them for the deaths of the others, since it was the golem's poison that killed them, not the players. His village will have heard his story and also know the PCs are badasses.

There are no other witnesses, no other responses to this event would seem appropriate.

"Murderhobos" would have killed the halflings on purpose in order to take whatever items they might have had on them, and maybe also killed the treant and searched his home for treasure, too, and if anyone else in the forest gave them trouble, they'd just burn the place down. Your players may lack strategic planning and might not take others' safety into consideration when employing combat tactics, but that isn't being a murderhobo.
If you want them to use more careful strategic planning, set up situations that are more dangerous to them. If they know they can solve all problems by rushing in and beating them to death, that's what they'll do. They need to be knocked down, put the fear of death in them, then they'll start looking for the smart way to do things.

[Mellack]

Really? Really?

The PCs have rocked in, they're no part of whatever society the Treants might have, they've actively killed a member of that society, accidental or not, with witnesses and you don't think that society is well within its rights to exact some kind of retribution?

If they take the effort to try and defend their actions in whatever passes for a court of law for the Treants, yeah, maybe they should be allowed get away with it on the whole, but even then there may be outlying sections of the Treant community that might seek revenge (such as close friends or family). That's assuming this group actually seeks to justify the death they have actively caused...which I doubt they will.

It's not like we're talking about someone that got killed by a bad guy while the PCs tried to save them (like with the halflings)...this is a Treant that got killed by a PC because of their carelessness. They're directly analogous to a vigilante that's shot a bystander trying to stop a bank robber; sure they might have been trying to do a good thing, but have gone about it all the wrong way and are liable to have some come-uppance, one way or another.

I have a slightly different take on it. It is more like a bank has been taken by a well armed team of robbers. The police are out-gunned and ask a group of soldiers of fortune to take the robbers out (the party was asked to assist.) The soldiers rush in and the robbers open up, killing many of the hostages. The soldiers in the firefight throw a grenade at the robbers, not knowing the police have a spotter hidden in one of the vents tracking the robbers. The spotter is killed along with some of the robbers. Friendly fire event, not criminal. The spotter was unknown, and in a combat zone.
Now the party was very reckless, and the treants should probably avould them as being such. That does not make thier act criminal or deserving of being punished. If the treant was not going to be part of combat, why would they be anywhere near there?

[Sigreid]

Really? Really?

The PCs have rocked in, they're no part of whatever society the Treants might have, they've actively killed a member of that society, accidental or not, with witnesses and you don't think that society is well within its rights to exact some kind of retribution?

If they take the effort to try and defend their actions in whatever passes for a court of law for the Treants, yeah, maybe they should be allowed get away with it on the whole, but even then there may be outlying sections of the Treant community that might seek revenge (such as close friends or family). That's assuming this group actually seeks to justify the death they have actively caused...which I doubt they will.

It's not like we're talking about someone that got killed by a bad guy while the PCs tried to save them (like with the halflings)...this is a Treant that got killed by a PC because of their carelessness. They're directly analogous to a vigilante that's shot a bystander trying to stop a bank robber; sure they might have been trying to do a good thing, but have gone about it all the wrong way and are liable to have some come-uppance, one way or another.

As I said, it not being criminal doesn't mean the treants won't get pissy about it and possibly hostile. From the OP's discussion, it didn't sound to me like the halflings or the treants were the reason for the fight with the golems at all. It reads to me like the party needed the hand of a golem for their wizard of oz quest. The DM set up the imprisoned halflings with the intention of providing a means for the group to be heroes and gain some assistance. The party being neutral and evil types didn't give two handfuls of donkey poop about the halflings, the treants, or the possibility of allies and went ahead with their mission.

Are the halfling villagers and the treants going to be happy? No
Are the halfling villagers or treants going to help the party in the future? Don't see why they would.
Are the halfling villagers or treants going to refuse to even trade with the party? Quite possibly.
Will the halfling villagers or treants seek actual physical revenge? Possibly, but they don't really have revenge standing. Neither the halflings nor the treant were purposefully attacked. They just weren't protected while the party did their business. The party is under no obligation to protect them, and they don't sound like a party where that is a reasonable expectation. Again, the party was not the source of the danger to the halflings or treants. That was the golems. The halflings and the treant were just collateral damage. Good characters will try to avoid that. Neutral characters might, if it doesn't increase their risk. Evil characters won't even consider it unless they are seeking some other advantage by appearing heroic in the short term.

[IShouldntBehere]

Yeah... I dont suggest trying this at home. You'll probably be arrested for murder.

Why should the campaign world be any different?


A random homeless commoner turns up dead.... and who exactly cares enough to do anything? The city guard has limited resources that are better spent protecting the interests of folks with better capacity to pay them. The poor & disenfranchised have always been relatively consequence-free targets for violence, so long as you don't do it on busy street in broad daylight. Police can hardly be bothered to fully investigate the death of every homless drifter irl, why should the real campaign world by any different?




Depends on the role of Karma (and the Gods) in your universe. Is the prime material a place where Gods have no say in their domains? Karma (and actions having consequences) could very well be due to the machinations thereof. Certainly in Faerun when you die your alignment and deity dictate your final reward (or punishment), and the canon suggests that Gods have some intrest and cosmic involvement in their portfolios.

Torm in particular might orchestrate things so that such a person in your example above escapes those dire consequences (or even is assured of a place in his realm on death, for an eternity of reward for his noble sacrifice in life).

Maybe the universe is set up in a way where good always finds a way to triumph over evil, or (Krynn) where evil is forever doomed to turn in on itself and devour itself from within (and if cosmic balance one way or the other is disturbed, the universe and the Gods themselves intervene).

In short, in addition to being a good narrative tool (it's used in most media and art, where the bad guy always gets his comeuppance, and the good guy gets the girl) it might also form part of the cosmic reality of the game universe in one way or the other.

In a universe that features actual Gods fighting over souls and actions, objective morality, and something called Alignment (i.e most DnD settings) this is more than feasable, and indeed I argue the probable assumed state of affairs.

Of course, maybe your campaign universe is totally nihlistic where there is no reason for anything, nothing matters, the universe is indifferent and so forth.

I think even the most interventionist gods in the most fantastical optimistically directed setting would not be personally stepping in on every unjust execution in the world. If they did that indicates a level involvement so high we probably wouldn't even have mortal governments or social structures just the gods directly controlling everything in person.

[Kish]

I recently just completed a session where my group of 4 PCs (alignments: LE, CN, N, CN)
Wait what? You're enforcing moral restrictions on a group where evil alignments are allowed, someone is evil, no one is good...

I was going to set up a conversation between the final living halfling and the group (also exposing that two of the dead halflings are the parents of the halfling in our group to try to force empathy, but this guy is True Neutral and likely will just brush it off.)
...and you adhere to the philosophy that "neutral" means Uncaring Evil while "evil" only means Sadistic Evil. So the question to ask is: What's the problem? Why should there be penalties, and what are the penalties for? If they're for being stupid, the only consequences should be logical ones, "the people who would be alienated by your actions are alienated" sort of thing, not "the DM disapproves and will rap your knuckles." If they're for being evil, you need to sort out whether that's actually forbidden in this group or not.