PCs and authority figures

[willdaBEAST]

While DMing I've noticed that certain players seem to balk at recognizing any authority figures within the game and others are quick to write off any NPC that won't drop everything they're doing to help the party as jerks.

Have any of you experienced that dynamic? Any advice on how to address it out of game or in game ways to help illustrate social decorum that NPCs expect (or appreciate)?

Maybe I'm not articulating the power dynamic or expected social etiquette well enough, but it frustrates me as a DM because I want to show that the world reacts to the characters and that there are consequences for reckless behavior. However, I also don't want to be overly punitive towards the players and create an antagonistic relationship.

[Potato_Priest]

I have definitely noticed this trend. PCs are generally willing to do jobs for pay, but will not follow orders from outside the party without significant bribery.

It doesn’t just apply to authority either. Anyone who ever steals from the party or succeeds in defying them during play in any other way becomes an immediate target for incredibly disproportionate revenge. It’s like that quote I’ve seen somewhere here: murder a pcs’ mother, and it’s just the cost of doing business. Steal a pc’s shoes, and now it’s personal.

Now, I’m not complaining. I love my players and wouldn’t know what to do if they stopped murderhoboing, but that’s just the way things are.

[Lunali]

I have definitely noticed this trend. PCs are generally willing to do jobs for pay, but will not follow orders from outside the party without significant bribery.

It doesn’t just apply to authority either. Anyone who ever steals from the party or succeeds in defying them during play in any other way becomes an immediate target for incredibly disproportionate revenge. It’s like that quote I’ve seen somewhere here: murder a pcs’ mother, and it’s just the cost of doing business. Steal a pc’s shoes, and now it’s personal.

Now, I’m not complaining. I love my players and wouldn’t know what to do if they stopped murderhoboing, but that’s just the way things are.

If you kill a PC's mother, you're destroying something the character cares about. If you steal the PC's shoes, you're taking away something the player cares about.

[Unoriginal]

I've seen it happen, yeah.



On a related topic: have you ever had players who constantly want to outshine or sabotage any NPC who's shown to have any skills?

[willdaBEAST]

On a related topic: have you ever had players who constantly want to outshine or sabotage any NPC who's shown to have any skills?
This is one reason I try to avoid DMPCs. However, I've kind of had the opposite experience. Any NPC who has any remote skill is immediately wooed as a potential ally. Should the NPC hesitate in any way or express concern for the safety of their family, return to my original post.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a friend whose last character (before this one) was positively allergic to authority figures, at least if they struck him as anything less than absolutely dedicated to their jobs. Meaning if he thought "why hasn't this guy fixed the problem they're sending us out on yet?", he'd mouth off and tell them to get bent. Usually to their face. And since he was the face of the party (GOO warlock, persuasion proficiency), he could usually get it to stick.

Him and the rogue in that group were both bad about that. The whole group ranged from the chaotic side of neutral good to so far chaotic (and still mostly good, just...differently so) that they made slaadi look like denizens of Mechanus. They managed to talk the BBGG (antagonist, not villain) into an existential crisis rather than let him sacrifice himself to create a real afterlife because they didn't trust his sense of justice (despite him being actually a good, if a bit hide-bound/stick-in-the-mud person who only wanted the best for the world as he saw it). In the after-game (the narrative after the campaign concluded), the rogue ended up being simultaneously a major political figure and the head of an international drug[1]-smuggling ring.

[1] Never give a tentacle-obsessed GOO warlock access to basically unlimited amounts of a mutation-inducing drug. Things get weird, and fast. For that matter, never give a greedy rogue access to basically unlimited amounts of any psychoactive chemical, especially if such things are not available where he comes from and he's one of the only ones who has access to the transport capability to get it home.

[Kane0]

It's just one of those things that can encourage murder-hoboism:

- Lack of punishment for murderhoboing
- Lack of reward for not murderhoboing
- A pattern of asshat NPCs
- The world revolving around the PCs
- PC lacking a feeling of agency
- Violence is often the easy solution
- People play for escapism (IE not taking crap from superiors)
- The abstract nature of RPGs makes extreme escalation easier

And so forth.

[Lunali]

Do the authority figures in question actually have any authority over the PCs? If the characters are members of the guard or some organization, then they will likely have superiors. If they are not, the authority figure is typically either trying to hire the characters, or trying to get them to join an organization so they don't have to pay them as much. If the PCs are dealing with actual superiors, they should be punished with menial tasks, if they are not, they are usually under no obligation to show deference.

If you don't punish your players for bad social etiquette, you're encouraging the behavior, but you may want to warn them out of character first and give them another chance to fail.

Any more advice would require a more detailed description of the problem, who are the authorities? what decorum is expected? how did the characters fall short?

[Unoriginal]

Punishing PCs for bad behavior when they have that kind of attitude generally ends with the town, or at least someone's headquarters, on fire.

[NotPrior]

Punishing PCs for bad behavior when they have that kind of attitude generally ends with the town, or at least someone's headquarters, on fire.

If you can't make punishment stick then you have a different issue- you have a bunch of (at least in-universe) narcissistic jerks who are also functionally unstoppable. You basically have supervillains.

These situations always go back to DMs not being willing to punish the characters in a way that matters. If the characters flip off the king in his throne room then those characters should die. If they don't die- or at least be imprisoned for years, escape, and become fugitives forced to flee the country- then the players will learn that being a bunch of jerks is okay and they will continue to not care about what anyone theoretically above them says.

Motivation is a carrot and a stick. The stick has been shown not to exist, and the carrot is something they don't need or want.

[JakOfAllTirades]

At some point you just have to collect character sheets, ink in Chaotic Evil for their alignment, and go from there.

If they don't like that, too bad. They shouldn't behave like morally retarded dirt bags.

[hymer]

If the characters flip off the king in his throne room then those characters should die.
A king should be slow to anger. Just remove the offending digit. Then offer the bleeding PC a chance to kiss the ring. If this isn't done to satisfaction, cut off the lips. The PC is invited to ask for forgiveness. If no apology is forthcoming, remove the tongue. And so on. The executioner will be civil, and the court will moan and beg the culprit to stop being an idiot.
Even better, have this happen to an NPC while the PCs are waiting to get their turn. Have the King express regret that they had to see that, and have him say that sadly society would collapse if he did not enforce his authority. Now, what was the little matter the PCs were so privileged to be allowed to assist with? Oh, yes...

[MaxWilson]

A king should be slow to anger. Just remove the offending digit. Then offer the bleeding PC a chance to kiss the ring. If this isn't done to satisfaction, cut off the lips. The PC is invited to ask for forgiveness. If no apology is forthcoming, remove the tongue. And so on. The executioner will be civil, and the court will moan and beg the culprit to stop being an idiot.
Even better, have this happen to an NPC while the PCs are waiting to get their turn. Have the King express regret that they had to see that, and have him say that sadly society would collapse if he did not enforce his authority. Now, what was the little matter the PCs were so privileged to be allowed to assist with? Oh, yes...

Oh, wow. That is... brutal, and yet far more psychologically effective than "kill them all" would be. Consider it stolen.

[KorvinStarmast]

At some point you just have to collect character sheets, ink in Chaotic Evil for their alignment, and go from there.

If they don't like that, too bad. They shouldn't behave like morally retarded dirt bags. I have met a lot of DM's and D&D players who (1) don't know how to lead, and (2) don't know how to be in charge. I have met fewer who do. The latter group have less trouble with this. Unless you understand how authority works -- as parent, coach, teacher, patrol leader, crossing guard, older sibling babysitting younger siblings -- it's harder to apply some of the simple tools of authority effectively (beyond "I said so!") as a DM through your NPC's than if you do understand it. I wasn't very good at it when I first began to DM, but I learned pretty quickly due to the challenges my players presented to me. (And some RL experience of having to be in charge of a moving crew when I was 19, and the youngest person on the truck ... I was the only non stoner ... )

There are two people in my current playing group who I am sure, no matter how much fun we had with them as DM's in the 70's, are no longer interested in DMing. They don't want to have anything to do with being 'in charge' due to some life experiences.

A king should be slow to anger. Just remove the offending digit. Then offer the bleeding PC a chance to kiss the ring. If this isn't done to satisfaction, cut off the lips. The PC is invited to ask for forgiveness. If no apology is forthcoming, remove the tongue. And so on. The executioner will be civil, and the court will moan and beg the culprit to stop being an idiot.
Even better, have this happen to an NPC while the PCs are waiting to get their turn. Have the King express regret that they had to see that, and have him say that sadly society would collapse if he did not enforce his authority. Now, what was the little matter the PCs were so privileged to be allowed to assist with? Oh, yes... Nice example.

[Unoriginal]

Again, you can't make characters -or maybe more accurately players- who have a problem with authority behave by enforcing authority.

In my experience, this is what happen:

An authority figure imposing legitimate punishment? They're a "jerk" and the players with authority problems will want them dead.

Anyone with a bit of power acting a bit obnoxiously? Players with authority problems will go out of their way to humiliate them.

PCs do something bad and are punished for it? Players with authority problems just keep going until the PCs are dead, then re-roll characters who are the same.


Not all players are like this, far from it, but I've never seen the ones who had a problem with authority deviate from this trend.

Not to mention how they don't care much for the DM, because the DM is also an "authority figure".

[Tanarii]

There's a couple of reasons for this.

Many players RPG for wish fulfillment. This often includes being a badass and nobody making them do what they don't want.

Lots of modern RPG gaming intentionally try to instill the idea what PCs are important, either the hero or the protagonist, of some kind of (possibly collective) story. As a group or individually, they believe they are the most important thing in the campaign world. (Edit: And in a single party game, this is even sort of true, from a "game wouldn't exist without them" point of view.)

And of course, it's a game. It's detached from reality. There are only the consequences for actions when the DM makes them. And even then, they aren't real consequences.

Even players playing in good faith are going to have a touch of all three of these. Wish fulfillment, a sense of being important, and detachment from real consequences.

[willdaBEAST]

Many players RPG for wish fulfillment. This often includes being a badass and nobody making them do what they don't want.
That's fair and valid, but it's also anti-social and will likely cause issues between party members as well.

It also makes me think of the fans of Breaking Bad or Rick and Morty who defend Walter White or Rick Sanchez as heroes. I think being a protagonist feeds into a sense of entitlement or always being right for many.


Even players playing in good faith are going to have a touch of all three of these. Wish fulfillment, a sense of being important, and detachment from real consequences.
That's true and is why I'm looking for ways to either more easily communicate the reservations I have to players, or convey consequences in a game that isn't heavy handed and adds to the immersion of the world. The incident that motivated this post was also a concern of other players, they were all confused by one player's actions, so I think that's a good sign.

I've gone the route of taking out actions on a NPC and I think that's a fairly effective warning, especially if you articulate the reasoning behind it. But part of my internal conflict is it makes me feel like I'm coddling the players, shielding them from "realism" in an effort to avoid severe consequences. Ultimately it's about having fun and I certainly don't want players walking around on eggshells afraid of getting executed if they misspeak, but at the same time it's not fun for me when I'm trying to convey a scene and a player is openly disrespectful towards a NPC (from my perspective unjustifiably).


The executioner will be civil, and the court will moan and beg the culprit to stop being an idiot.
Even better, have this happen to an NPC while the PCs are waiting to get their turn. Have the King express regret that they had to see that, and have him say that sadly society would collapse if he did not enforce his authority. This is an important approach to me, having the powerful NPC being remorseful about doling out the punishments that society dictates helps prevent them from being easily written off as a villain.

[willdaBEAST]

I have met a lot of DM's and D&D players who (1) don't know how to lead, and (2) don't know how to be in charge. I have met fewer who do. The latter group have less trouble with this. Unless you understand how authority works -- as parent, coach, teacher, patrol leader, crossing guard, older sibling babysitting younger siblings -- it's harder to apply some of the simple tools of authority effectively (beyond "I said so!") as a DM through your NPC's than if you do understand it. I wasn't very good at it when I first began to DM, but I learned pretty quickly due to the challenges my players presented to me.
Do you have any specific approaches or tools that have worked well for you? Or what are some of the traps that DMs can fall into?

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you have any specific approaches or tools that have worked well for you?
Be involved with each character's creation and back story. Make it a collaborative effort so that when session one begins they already fit, somewhat, into the world. That's half the battle, IMO. You can nip some murderhoboism in the bud right there.

Don't be afraid to say no.
Don't be afraid to end a session if it's going off the rails, or if people would rather argue than play.
Don't be afraid to say yes.
Give them enough rope; they will either hang themselves, or to make a hammock.
Don't be afraid to let a PC die. There are dice, or point buys, another one can be made.

Incentivize non murderhobo play with in game rewards: xp, items, contacts, loot, clues.

Do not incentivize murderhobo activity with the same. If they torture the farmer's daughter with a hot branding iron, make sure that the information she finally screams out is false.
If they set fire to the inn, let the posse come chasing them in seriously superior numbers, armed with heavy crossbows/longbows, etc.
If they start a fight at the tavern, and it turns bloody, wanted posters go up.
Look up the Assassin NPC. Use them now and again. They are for hire for a reason: rich and powerful people need to sometimes take someone out. A PC can become that someone.

Have "after the session" chats with the group.
"What went well? What went badly?"
Listen.

Where the=players' feedback indicates a clash of values, or a clash of expectations, you need to have further discussions about where your boundaries are. As long as the players know the edges, you won't be surprising them with "no, we don't do that here" in the middle of play.

As with a lot of DMisms, when someone proposes something way out, the timely use of "are you sure?" question sometimes helps, and sometimes can't help.

You may also find some areas where you can adjust your boundaries if you all kick ideas around and have a conversation. The worst time to have this discussion on boundaries "in game" ... and if someone wants to indulge in a sick fantasy, you can "fade to black" when you see that it's getting past your boundaries.
"OK, you and the unicorn begin to frolic in an erotic manner under the waterfall ... fade to black" You'll be busy for the next half an hour.

*turn to next player*

Jed, what are you doing?

When saying no, the "no ... but" approach is a way to redirect the flow of what a character is trying to do. That means that you have to think on your feet. I can't tell you how to do that, it's a knack that you develop over time.


Or what are some of the traps that DMs can fall into? Failing to say "no"
Failing to set the tone of the campaign world
Being unwilling to end a session when it's gone off the rails.
Not having another option/encounter ready.
Always have a few spare/non plot encounters in a folder, ready to go.

As to authority NPC's:

Most people in power are comfortable in their position, and do not react hastily. They also have multiple resources available to deal with problems. Your powerful NPC's need to be calm, thoughtful, and goal oriented. They have multiple advisors or resources to draw upon.

The PC's mostly interact with intermediate authority on a routine basis.
You need to give lots of in context clues about just how outnumbered the party is as you go higher up the authority ladder.
And if they want to take on an army, let them try, and if they die, there are the dice over there. (Or a point buy ..)

[Sigreid]

I'll put forth that it depends on the level of the characters and the campaign. In my campaigns, below level 10 insulting a king is a very dangerous proposition but level 20 characters are basically demigods, among the most powerful beings ever to walk the land, and cannot be reasonably forced to do anything they don't want to do. Between level from level 10-19, the resources to force the character or party to do anything are far to costly to make it worth it.

In my game world the relationship between rulers and the party evolve from the party is just glad to get some work to the party is honored for their abilities so long as they know the limits of their place to rulers strive to curry favor with them.

[DarkKnightJin]

My (now 6th level) Cleric was told by his god during prayer that he would be needed in the time to come.
Did he get a sense of self importance and let it go to his head?
No.
He thought "Crap, I can't do stupid **** and get myself killed before I've played my part!"
While also being aware that he can't just hole himself up in a temple, because he needs to help the people and gain more power so he's strong enough to do what his god needs him to do.

But that's probably part of me as a player having a healthy amount of respect for authority.
Not that I never question authority in-game. Or call them out when they are being unreasonable.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Again, you can't make characters -or maybe more accurately players- who have a problem with authority behave by enforcing authority.

In my experience, this is what happen:

An authority figure imposing legitimate punishment? They're a "jerk" and the players with authority problems will want them dead.

Anyone with a bit of power acting a bit obnoxiously? Players with authority problems will go out of their way to humiliate them.

PCs do something bad and are punished for it? Players with authority problems just keep going until the PCs are dead, then re-roll characters who are the same.


Not all players are like this, far from it, but I've never seen the ones who had a problem with authority deviate from this trend.

Not to mention how they don't care much for the DM, because the DM is also an "authority figure".


All of these issues, IMHO, come down to the relative maturity level of the players. And I agree 100% that you can't really change them, aside from patiently waiting until they grow up.

I don't have time for this sort of thing; I just game with grown ups and tell players who want to act like surly children to find a table that fits their playing style a bit better. Unless it seems like I'm the only "grown up" at the table, then I tell everyone to have fun with their power tripping fantasies and let myself out.

[Contrast]

At some point you just have to collect character sheets, ink in Chaotic Evil for their alignment, and go from there.

If they don't like that, too bad. They shouldn't behave like morally retarded dirt bags.

I'd hardly call being rude evil. :smallconfused:

[furby076]

Like i am teaching my 2 year old daughter, you need to teach your players about 1 word. It's a magic word, more powerful than any of the power word spells. It's called: Consequences

Mouth off to someone and things the party doesn't want to happen, happens
1) they cant get the guide they need to show them the safe path to their quest
2) they get locked up by the town mayor
3) they get mugged and busted up by the thieves guild
4) They have a warrant placed for their arrest..If they did something really bad, it could be dead or alive. other adventurers hunt thtem
5) they lose favor with nobility
6) they dont get the best reward "yea i'll pay you jerks 1000 gp to rescue the princess, but if you were nice you would have gotten land, magic items and her hand in marriage..she is charisma 20"

Now, the pcs may waltz into some places and murderhobo the town. The trail of blood will eventualy catch up to them. They will be wanted murderers. Or they can try to waltz over some other town, only to find out the hardway that the owner of the barkeep and his best friends are retired level 15 adventurers who wipe the floor with the party. If they live depnds on how bad the party was. It's a valuable lesson: don't pick a fight with someone just cause you think you can. You may know how to fight, but that person could be a world champion MMA fighter...or some nutball with a gun. Eventually, being dumb and recklous catches up with you.

Thats how you get the players to respect your world and your NPCs authority. It's similar to what a DM did to our party once....We encountered a desk, it was a mimic. It almost TPK'd us. From that point on, any desk we saw was treated with absolute caution, then burned. Another time, an 8 year old newspaper boy turned out to be a polymorphed beholder. We feared all newspaper boys from then on. They got respected and tipped.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'd hardly call being rude evil. :smallconfused:

This really depends on how far the PCs go with their behavior. The OP in this thread is basically about rudeness, but some of the replies discuss behavior from PCs which is far beyond that.

[Tanarii]

That's true and is why I'm looking for ways to either more easily communicate the reservations I have to players, or convey consequences in a game that isn't heavy handed and adds to the immersion of the world. The incident that motivated this post was also a concern of other players, they were all confused by one player's actions, so I think that's a good sign. Sorry, my post wasn't very helpful on particulars. But that can be hard without knowing a lot of detail about what kind of game a DM runs. How powerful are the PCs relative to the world? That makes a diffrerence. If nothing can stop them, you've got to persuade the players to buy in.

My preferred approach for pretty much everything is warn, then consequences. As in, directly warn the player when they may not have thought about consequences. "Are you sure?" is always a good question. Especially if you want paranoid players. :smallamused:

It's my prefered approach, but I'm not perfect at it. I had one situation last year I've posted about a few times, where in the first session a player tells me their character runs through a enemy another player had grappled at 1hp, and the party was interrogating, and was now blubbering begging for mercy. I stared for a second, then responded with a flat "he's dead". I really didn't want to encourage thoughtless slaughtering of prisoners though, so I had to circle around at the beginning of the next session to mention that. And point out something like that they probably wouldn't like it if enemies who had heard of their reputation offered them no quarter.

[Lunali]

My preferred approach for pretty much everything is warn, then consequences. As in, directly warn the player when they may not have thought about consequences. "Are you sure?" is always a good question. Especially if you want paranoid players. :smallamused:

Sometimes players can fail to realize the weight of that question, the first couple times you ask it, you may want to add a little bit about why their actions may be ill advised.

[Tanarii]

Sometimes players can fail to realize the weight of that question, the first couple times you ask it, you may want to add a little bit about why their actions may be ill advised.
I agree. Helpful for newer players, or ones very new to your DMing style when they've never had to face serious danger in previous campaigns.

[Pelle]

All of these issues, IMHO, come down to the relative maturity level of the players. And I agree 100% that you can't really change them, aside from patiently waiting until they grow up.

I don't have time for this sort of thing; I just game with grown ups and tell players who want to act like surly children to find a table that fits their playing style a bit better. Unless it seems like I'm the only "grown up" at the table, then I tell everyone to have fun with their power tripping fantasies and let myself out.

Yes. A disrespectful PC isn't a problem per se, just have the npcs react accordingly (getting angry, sad, etc).

Personally though, I get tired if the players only want to portray bad persons. I will enjoy myself at the table much more if the PCs are actually nice likeable characters that I can care about. If it is the same for the OP, I suggest to just have a chat with the players about what kind of PCs you all enjoy.

[Magzimum]

While DMing I've noticed that certain players seem to balk at recognizing any authority figures within the game and others are quick to write off any NPC that won't drop everything they're doing to help the party as jerks.

Have any of you experienced that dynamic? Any advice on how to address it out of game or in game ways to help illustrate social decorum that NPCs expect (or appreciate)?

Maybe I'm not articulating the power dynamic or expected social etiquette well enough, but it frustrates me as a DM because I want to show that the world reacts to the characters and that there are consequences for reckless behavior. However, I also don't want to be overly punitive towards the players and create an antagonistic relationship.

The key thing about D&D is that players like to have the feeling of choice. If someone with lots of authority starts barking orders, then they feel that they have no choice, and this feels bad to the players (not necessarily to the characters). If you want them to follow orders, make sure they understand the consequences of failing to do so.

Also, if you look at famous action movies: How often is the main hero good at following orders? The hero almost inevitably will do things his own way. Make sure to give players that possibility.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The key thing about D&D is that players like to have the feeling of choice. If someone with lots of authority starts barking orders, then they feel that they have no choice, and this feels bad to the players (not necessarily to the characters). If you want them to follow orders, make sure they understand the consequences of failing to do so.

Also, if you look at famous action movies: How often is the main hero good at following orders? The hero almost inevitably will do things his own way. Make sure to give players that possibility.

Oh yes, the arse-hole hero. The not a team player hero.

You'd think anyone with half a brain would realize RPG's aren't the place for this type of character.

[Sigreid]

So, I'm going to loop around and suggest the OP make sure that he and his/her players understand the campaign they are playing the same way. Meaning, if the DM believes that they are playing a game where the players work for others and climb the status latter that way but the players think they are playing independent adventurers living by their own rules; that's something they need to work out.

[sithlordnergal]

I am pretty lucky, most of my players aren't murderhobos. And the one player who is a murderhobo is kept in line with the others. Thaaaat said, I have sometimes been the player who balks at authority. That said, I usually don't do it as a "**** all the rulers, I'm my own guy". Usually when I am rude to those in power it is because my character deeply dislikes something about their rule. For example:

Our party was hired by a merchant prince in Port Nyanzaru. This particular prince had tossed someone into Executioner's Run for a minor infraction, and the Chaotic Good Druid, a.k.a. me, immediately saw that this was not just8ce and there was severe animal abuse going on.

We were then given a job to murder the son of a rival merchant prince just so our employer could gain more political power. We agreed to it, then after we left I convinced the party to spare are target and stab our employer in the back by exposing their plot.

I am level 12 currently, and intend to return once I am level 20 to kill the merchant prince in question while also rescuing the abused dinos. At that point, nothing in port nyanzaru can kill me and I won't give a single **** about the prince's so called authority

[Bahamut7]

Honestly, the best way to deal with such things is dole out punishments as bad as the disrespect. If they choose to offend and completely disrespect an authority figure, simply have someone at the level authority react in whatever is appropriate.

Let's say it is a Duke. They choose to be crass and completely disrespect his authority when dealing with him. Being a Duke, he will not outright attack the party, but will react later. Perhaps he hires a trusted team to follow and eliminate the team just as they finish their job or pay them less for the disrespect upon completion.

[Angelalex242]

Honestly, the best way to deal with such things is dole out punishments as bad as the disrespect. If they choose to offend and completely disrespect an authority figure, simply have someone at the level authority react in whatever is appropriate.

Let's say it is a Duke. They choose to be crass and completely disrespect his authority when dealing with him. Being a Duke, he will not outright attack the party, but will react later. Perhaps he hires a trusted team to follow and eliminate the team just as they finish their job or pay them less for the disrespect upon completion.

Here's a novel thought: ask the players what authority they consider to be legitimate?

If one of the kings is 'King Arthur' and everybody respects King Arthur's Lawful Goodness and wisdom and so on, then have them work for King Arthur.

[willdaBEAST]

So, I'm going to loop around and suggest the OP make sure that he and his/her players understand the campaign they are playing the same way. Meaning, if the DM believes that they are playing a game where the players work for others and climb the status latter that way but the players think they are playing independent adventurers living by their own rules; that's something they need to work out.
I had a session zero where I laid the framework of the campaign out, but I'm going to talk with the group again ahead of our next session to make sure we're on the same page. I brought up the initial post not because it's crippling my campaign, but because I've noticed a trend of similar behavior across different campaigns.

I think ultimately it can be a bit of both though, not either or. Just because you're a group of independent adventurers, that doesn't mean you have to act out in every important court meeting. There's a degree of self-preservation that I think gets lost on a lot of players. They have something like "rebels against authority" written on their character sheet so they default to that, regardless of the context. It's like being a slave to your alignment, it ends up creating a shallow caricature.

I'm trying to run a sandbox and have given my players as much freedom as possible, they chose to travel so they could meet an important council, were warned ahead of time to follow court etiquette, so I think that's why one player's behavior threw me off.

[Sigreid]

I had a session zero where I laid the framework of the campaign out, but I'm going to talk with the group again ahead of our next session to make sure we're on the same page. I brought up the initial post not because it's crippling my campaign, but because I've noticed a trend of similar behavior across different campaigns.

I think ultimately it can be a bit of both though, not either or. Just because you're a group of independent adventurers, that doesn't mean you have to act out in every important court meeting. There's a degree of self-preservation that I think gets lost on a lot of players. They have something like "rebels against authority" written on their character sheet so they default to that, regardless of the context. It's like being a slave to your alignment, it ends up creating a shallow caricature.

I'm trying to run a sandbox and have given my players as much freedom as possible, they chose to travel so they could meet an important council, were warned ahead of time to follow court etiquette, so I think that's why one player's behavior threw me off.

Yeah, I get that. I myself am notoriously disagreeable as a player, but I tend not to be rude about it. No cussing, no flipping off the king, etc. My group also knows that you the authority figure presents themselves in a reasonably cordial manner I'm much more likely to go along with them. And if said authority figure has made an effort to present themselves as a friend I'll move heaven and earth to help them.

[Knaight]

This is an important approach to me, having the powerful NPC being remorseful about doling out the punishments that society dictates helps prevent them from being easily written off as a villain.
You say that, but they really just come across as a villain with a reason for their villainy here. They've a bit more depth than the total monster, sure, but that doesn't make them not a villain.


Oh yes, the arse-hole hero. The not a team player hero.

You'd think anyone with half a brain would realize RPG's aren't the place for this type of character.
They can operate within a team just fine - it's being a subordinate in an established power structure that they tend not to work as well in. This makes them just fine for any number of RPG campaigns.

[FieserMoep]

IMHO its important to have a session 0 and make very clear that this campaign plays in a world that does not revolve around them and that their actions will reap consequences. Good and bad alike.

Why? Its important to have everyone on the same page or even point at the page in the first place. Some players simply don't know better and were socialized to DnD in Murderhobo groups or mask their insecurities at the table with extreme and overacted roleplay. If you punish them, it has to be clear WHY you punished them. You punished them not because your campaign is a Murderhobo power fantasy and you did not like their character, you punished them because you want some remote semblance of realism to your otherwise fantastic world in which people get punished for certain acts. Explain to them WHY they got the stick afterwards and refer to that Session 0 where you all agreed upon these rules and world you introduced them too.

If they want to act like Jerks, so be it but at some point a Kingdom may muster a Force of Paladins and Clerics accompanied by Mercenary Fighters and Rogues to track them down. And they will. Make clear that they are not the only "Heroes" in your world. Just because they defeated the Dragon, that does not mean anyone else could not have done the same. Most likely the very magical items they hold once belonged to greater heroes and that alone should be testament to their role in this world - a non exclusive one. Ultimately your PCs may optimized with great gear but the action economy alone allows a Warband of competent NPCs to get them. Maybe they fight of the first group, maybe the second, but that only increases the Bounty and the people send after them.

It CAN turn into a great Villain campaign, the sad part is, most players that get side-tracked so hard into jerk mode would also fail at grasping that opportunity tho. If everyone has fun, let this continue. If one side stop to have fun, end it with a great finale of 25 Longbow-Rangers penetrating their skulls when they attempted to cross a river. If you don't have fun its not worth continuing.

[GlenSmash!]

Any advice on how to address it out of game or in game ways to help illustrate social decorum that NPCs expect (or appreciate)?

I also think a good session 0 is the best way to curb this behavior, but I recognize it won't completely alleviate it.

If from the start you detail that you don't enjoy running a game where players go on complete power fantasies at the expense of everyone around them, and that PC have reasons to journey together and ties to each other, it at least gives you some context to say "Hey, remember when we talked about this at the beginning of the game, it turns out I still don't like it".

[Sigreid]

IMHO its important to have a session 0 and make very clear that this campaign plays in a world that does not revolve around them and that their actions will reap consequences. Good and bad alike.

Why? Its important to have everyone on the same page or even point at the page in the first place. Some players simply don't know better and were socialized to DnD in Murderhobo groups or mask their insecurities at the table with extreme and overacted roleplay. If you punish them, it has to be clear WHY you punished them. You punished them not because your campaign is a Murderhobo power fantasy and you did not like their character, you punished them because you want some remote semblance of realism to your otherwise fantastic world in which people get punished for certain acts. Explain to them WHY they got the stick afterwards and refer to that Session 0 where you all agreed upon these rules and world you introduced them too.

If they want to act like Jerks, so be it but at some point a Kingdom may muster a Force of Paladins and Clerics accompanied by Mercenary Fighters and Rogues to track them down. And they will. Make clear that they are not the only "Heroes" in your world. Just because they defeated the Dragon, that does not mean anyone else could not have done the same. Most likely the very magical items they hold once belonged to greater heroes and that alone should be testament to their role in this world - a non exclusive one. Ultimately your PCs may optimized with great gear but the action economy alone allows a Warband of competent NPCs to get them. Maybe they fight of the first group, maybe the second, but that only increases the Bounty and the people send after them.

It CAN turn into a great Villain campaign, the sad part is, most players that get side-tracked so hard into jerk mode would also fail at grasping that opportunity tho. If everyone has fun, let this continue. If one side stop to have fun, end it with a great finale of 25 Longbow-Rangers penetrating their skulls when they attempted to cross a river. If you don't have fun its not worth continuing.

I'd be careful with this approach. It's easy to get to heavy handed with consequences and escalate it from the DM end as well. Even a king shouldn't go straight to imprisonment, torture and execution over rudeness or insults.

And, frankly, if one player wants to play a character that truly hates authority figures, maybe the rest of the party is smart enough not to bring him along to talk to the lord and maybe the lord has enough understanding of the spectrum of human nature to not insist on it. Yeah, maybe that guy has to sit quietly for a while during the adventure from time to time, and maybe he decides after a few to have his character show some restraint.

[Callak_Remier]

A reminder of Consequences is what's needed. PC's lipping off the Mayor incarceration for a week for slander.
PC's disrespecting a King ( I have had this happen. **** u not) Beheading.
Simple actions equal opposite Reaction

[BeefGood]

Problem with the consequences approach is that there are not explicit rules for things like throwing PC in jail or cutting off a finger. Certainly DM can work out something within the ability check framework but it takes some thought and experimentation.
I once tried to have two guards grapple and drag a PC rogue into a jail cell (and then get out and lock it before the rogue could get out.) they could not do it. PC too good at ability checks. Also abilities like bonus action dash.

[FieserMoep]

I'd be careful with this approach. It's easy to get to heavy handed with consequences and escalate it from the DM end as well. Even a king shouldn't go straight to imprisonment, torture and execution over rudeness or insults.

And, frankly, if one player wants to play a character that truly hates authority figures, maybe the rest of the party is smart enough not to bring him along to talk to the lord and maybe the lord has enough understanding of the spectrum of human nature to not insist on it. Yeah, maybe that guy has to sit quietly for a while during the adventure from time to time, and maybe he decides after a few to have his character show some restraint.

I partially agree and would add that it depends on the world you play in. In high fantasy your run of the mill king might be more lenient and not "dirty" his hand but instead turn this insult into an opportunity. For his forgiveness the party now has to do its next job for free, normally the inter-group role play should take care of that one dude that caused them to miss out on an entire adventure payment.

In another world the kings reign may be based upon divine right, keeping up his authority is the fundamental base of his power and he is the unquestioned ruler of the fate of his citizen that view him with the highest degree of respect, maybe even higher than most prolific church official. Maybe he even is head of the church. Would you interrupt Henry Tudor or even ****-talk him? You might, but you would kinda expect to rot in the tower from that point onward... or get the rope. Beheading is for nobles anyway.

If someone can not behave, the group itself should keep him away from talking to people or simply stop traveling with him outright. I mean if you can't keep your foul mouth under control you may lack any noticeable people skill from the start that may justify them taking you around. That is the difference to a party that has accepted to play lowlifes, such a campaign has a totally different theme and you may not run around with that paladin and cleric and you certainly never get an audience with the king anyway - at best his spymaster.

And that is why it is SO immensely important to have a session 0 where you actually agree on what you want to play. The Anti-Social type will be the total outcast screwing others if you play a traditional "hero" group. If you instead play an upstart campaing that focuses on the mud and filth, it may be entirely different.

That being said, telling a filthy joke about Tyr next to a member of the Hammers of Grimjaws and mocking them when they don't laugh won't get you any friendship points.


Problem with the consequences approach is that there are not explicit rules for things like throwing PC in jail or cutting off a finger. Certainly DM can work out something within the ability check framework but it takes some thought and experimentation.
I once tried to have two guards grapple and drag a PC rogue into a jail cell (and then get out and lock it before the rogue could get out.) they could not do it. PC too good at ability checks. Also abilities like bonus action dash.

What would medieval guards do next if they can't keep a hold on him. Attack him. This ain't a "game" for them. Sure, your high level rogue most likely makes a mockery of these dudes too. But the moment your PC group has bounty hunters on its heels with a DoA for the Rogue they might start to think about it and start an intervention to reign the rogue in. Gods beware they actually fight the bounty hunters off, better have no lawfull PCs in that group for they suddenly become acomplices and are looked for with the same prejudice. If suddenly half the ambitions of your PCs are crushed by being branded criminal they might rethink and go on a path of redemption or they continue and - if its fun for everyone - this becomes a criminal campaign because it seems that this is what they wanted or - if not everyone including the DM is okay with it - will end in a brutal showdown and dead PCs or the mercy of retirement.

[Tanarii]

If you go down the "guards attack to kill, then a series of increasingly unbelievably high leveled assassins and bounty hunter after the guards are (surprise surprise!) slaughtered out of hand" route you're basically guaranteeing a evil murderhobo villains game. I'm a huge fan of actions should have consequences, but that level of consequences need to be established before the game begins.

Of course, with 5e bounded accuracy, you could point out that 20 guards is probably a serious threat with a chance to outright beat a party of four, or let's say 5th levels. After you're either relying on the players exercising restraint, or turning it into a game of DM vs PCs.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, first off, I should say that a lot of D&D games work a lot better in the Wild, Wild West type setting. Simply put: don't have to many authority figures. Just let the PCs ''be''. Of course, they also get no help from authority figures.

When you do have authority figures, it never hurts to ''up'' the fantasy. Like when the PCs rob a store, and meet Guard Joe, and he is a boring human with armor, sure they are all like ''whatever". But when it's Guard Zor, a massive eight foot tall red scaled dragon man, they act a bit more. Even better is Zor like kills an animal companion or such and eats it in front of the PCs with a ''what?".