Need help with ad-hoc play

[Vorpal word]

I have a party that hasn't let me have a single session without winging half of it. Here's an example from 3rd level:

The party had just killed a sorcerer in town as part of a murder investigation. Naturally, the town guard member with them was killed in the fight. Although the sorcerer was in fact evil, there is no proof whatsoever, so the town guards arrested the PCs.

Now, my plan was that the players (who included a Str 21 CN orc barbarian) would immediately fight off the guards (There were only seven, six first-level warriors and a first level fighter) and bolt for the gate, which was only a couple hundred feet away.

Instead, they surrendered and were brought before the town council, who sentenced the barbarian to death and the druid to exile. At this point, the monk (who was being played temporarily and would leave at the end of the session) had a fit and attacked the druid, causing her to be led away in chains. Next up, the paladin betrayed his "friends" and joined the town guard. And finally, the druid and barbarian decided to run anyway, except now they had to cover an extra hundred feet.

Considering that I made up the council on the spot, it went pretty well.

Has anyone got advice on how to avoid this next time? Or has anyone else had the same problem?

[UserClone]

Have you ever read Order of the Stick, the webcomic created by this site's owner? There was a situation in which the party was in trouble in a similare situation except that they were guilty, and they still got away with it.

What's wrong with the tribunal using Zone of Truth and similar to prove that the characters are not guilty, and thus did not have to be executed? Honestly, this one doesn't even require much creativity if it involves even low-level magics.

[Vorpal word]

It was a small town. The strongest council member was a 7th level cleric of pelor. Who successfully used discern lies on the druid.

[Mephit]

Have a talk with your players about team play? That's what the game is all about, after all. I mean, one party member attacking another one, another character betraying the party. That's never happened in my games.

Some inner party conflict ain't a bad thing. But it's probably not the best time to betray eachother when there's a crisis like this going on.

Personally, I'd have made the monk or the paladin fall for doing that. Especially the paladin. Backstabbing your own friends is not a good act, and paladins don't have to be lawful stupid. I'd have him fall, humiliated and then locked up, personally. Preferably have the party rescue him later as extra embarassment.
(Then again, when I DM, team play is...encouraged. :smalltongue:)

Oh, and as for the start of the whole problem: If you've got a paladin in your party, you shouldn't expect the party to fight off city guards.

[kamikasei]

Who successfully used discern lies on the druid.

Why was he lying? And yeah, the paladin should have either fallen or gotten a stern talking-to by his deity.

[Vorpal word]

None of the other party members were good-aligned. The druid was neutral, the barbarian was chaotic neutral, the monk was lawful good but she was almost an NPC anyway. Thus, I decided the paladin wouldn't fall, especially since he only unknowingly betrayed them (they forgot to detect evil the sorcerer before they killed him, but he was in fact evil)