Consequences for terribly evil actions

[Ludence]

Hello everyone! I am pretty new to GMing, having ran a few sessions with a group of friends. I stumbled upon a little dilemma during our last session..
The group consists of three CE (yeah, I know) characters. They just entered the basement of a building (a slave-worker place disguised as a prison) and witness around twelve kids standing around a longtable. There were three teenage boys in the back, supervisors, who carried spears. They immedeatly charged, and the priest jumped up on the table, and channeled negative energy. In this process, he oneshots all the children aswell as he harms the 'guards'.

Now, I think its acceptable as he is CE.. However, after they finished the adventure during the same session, I have been thinking of what the consequences will be... I do believe there has to be a punishment/reward (or both) for doing such an evil act. Any tips for what I should follow up with?

[Anonymouswizard]

This is why I dislike alignments. Chaotic Evil and Neutral especially, but just in general.

First off, that sounds highly stupid evil, an intelligent evil character would have saved the kids and worked to have a decent reputation (at the very least 'he's a bastard, but even he wouldn't hurt kids'). So first of, in this case the party has probably taken a bad reputation hit when someone finds out about this (and someone will it work out they weren't careful enough).

[RazorChain]

Everybody despices child killers. If you end up in prison as a child killer you should hope that you spend the rest of your sentence in isolation.

Now think what happens if people find out the truth about this guy. This has nothing to do with punishment but consequences. You shouldnt punish players only invoke consequences.

[The Eye]

Well, it's kind of your own fault that the kids died isn't it?

I mean he used the spell to kill the guards not the kids, the spell only "Hit" the kids becuase youw anted it to hit the kids.

So the only child killer is YOU! The DM!

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, it's kind of your own fault that the kids died isn't it?

I mean he used the spell to kill the giards not the kids, the spell only "Hit" the kids becuase youw anted it to hit the kids.

So the only child killer is YOU! The DM!

Excellent Chaotic Evil roleplaying. "The only people responsible for the welfare of or harm dealt to others are people who aren't me."

Anyway yeah expect literally everyone who hears about this instance except weirdo death worshippers (maybe) to despise them just on a general instinctive level. Especially any other slaves in the area they decide to pick a fight with, that might have more levels.

[Slipperychicken]

Your group's problem is a common one. The first and most important thing you can do is realize that this is an out-of-character (or "OOC") problem. That means simply plotting in-game vengeance might sound like a gratifying proposition, but it's ultimately not going to address the deeper issues, and may well make things harder. People can easily waste precious years of their roleplaying careers pursuing vendettas in-game to no avail. Your concerns need to be addressed outside the game, in the big scary world of real human interactions.

Next, you need to do a bit of soul-searching and get honest with yourself about what kind of game you want to run. Do you really want to spend your evenings seething at people describing how they murder imaginary children that you put time into writing? Because you don't have to. Roleplaying gets better than this. A lot better than this. Think about which of your players are even worth playing with. Players are a renewable resource. Don't spend your free time with people you hate.

Also, realize that you are the GM. You have some social power here. You can pause the session to talk to players about things before they unfold. If a player shouts "I stab the baby!", then you don't have to let that happen. You have the power to stop the game, talk about that, and even cancel ak player's actions in the most extreme circumstances. You can choose to exclude undesired people from your games and look for higher-quality people.

From there, you have some options. My most recommended is to, outside of game sessions, start a frank and open conversation with your players about what sort of game you want to run and how the players are conducting themselves, and ways that you can have fun. That may well be your best bet to move toward a more fun and fulfilling game, but it is a very hard thing to do, I know because I myself have struggled with it. That conversation can lead into a few different directions, and one of those may well be a conclusion that you do not want to run games for these people.

A lot of people online are going to goad you to pursue an in-game grudge against the players. Emotionally that is an easy and tempting reaction because it helps you to ignore the out-of-game sources of grievance. However it almost certainly detrimental to the reasons you wanted to start GMing in the first place. Did you really sign up for GMing to passive-aggressively write grudge-encounters to thwart people you despise in real life? I suppose this counts as a warning to avoid this path, because it can lead to a lot of frustration, spitefulness, wasted creativity, wasted time, and even burnout.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Everybody despices child killers. If you end up in prison as a child killer you should hope that you spend the rest of your sentence in isolation.

Now think what happens if people find out the truth about this guy. This has nothing to do with punishment but consequences. You shouldnt punish players only invoke consequences.

Exactly. I don't know what kind of community (if any) this sweatshop was in the middle of, but at the very least once a period of time passes with no one going in or out of the building someone is going to discover the bodies.

The innocent victims won't have any marks, indicating they were killed by magic, while the slain guards presumably will bear wounds. If I was whatever NPC law enforcement this community has, my guess would be this was an act of gang violence or a raid by a rival criminal group (I'm presuming this sweatshop was an illegal enterprise?) Thus the law will be looking for a gang of mixed spellcasters and warriors. If the sweatshop was in the middle of a neighborhood it won't be unlikely someone witnessed the party entering and leaving the place, and maybe even heard noises of the battle.

This is where you want to ask if your setting is essentially using modern law enforcement style techniques or something closer to the historical period that Dungeons & Dragons (very loosely) coincides with. Medieval/early modern law enforcement was not so much about "justice" as it was about "keeping the peace." There were laws written up that basically ensured suspicious/shady types could be straight-up kicked out of town for no reason; in most towns/cities it was literally illegal not to instantly report a crime you witnessed (as it was often called, "raising a hue and cry.") The law was, essentially, a blunt instrument.

So if you have this neighborhood and the authorities have reason to suspect that there's trouble/violence going on there, you're probably not going to get a manhunt for specific perpetrators. The constabulary (an anachronistic term but you know what I mean) would probably just send in a Brute Squad (to use the Princess Bride's term) and go house-to-house and toss out/imprison anyone who even looked suspicious and couldn't give a perfectly good reason for being there.

If you want a more modern style of law enforcement (and one that would generally be more Good Aligned) they will probably go door-to-door in the neighborhood and try to gather witnesses and take deputations instead. Depending on the population of this neighborhood/city(?) I'd make it a high or medium percentile roll to see if there's even a good witness for the authorities to find. The longer the players stay in this city, the more they should begin to feel the noose tighten---there are armed patrols on every street corner, their weapons and armor are causing people to look at them suspiciously or keep a distance, they hear whispers behind their backs everytime they enter a tavern.... finally after a period of time you feel is reasonable, they may be outed as the culprits of the massacre. They might see their faces printed up on handbills posted on taverns and street-posts; city watch/serjeants might begin to accost, harass or attempt to detain/search them (honestly your PCs sound like the type who would go to all-out war if so much as confronted so bear that in mind).

Things to bear in mind:

+The more the authorities and the forces of law and good turn against or come after your PCs, perhaps the more likely other factions (especially nefarious ones--perhaps whatever cult your evil Cleric belongs to) will approach them as potential agents, allies or just useful pawns. Are there any rival or evil authorities within this city?

+How big/powerful is the organization running the sweatshop? Is there a powerful Thieves' Guild (or even just a "street gang") in this city? Are they aware of who crashed their sweatshop operation? Perhaps rather than trying for direct revenge (generally criminal organizations do NOT like to get into open wars) they might try to maneuver or lure the PCs into fighting the authorities.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Also yeah, obvs the first thing to ask yourself is if you are happy running this kind of game, where the PCs are criminals/evil bastards who do evil things to people that don't deserve it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking that kind of game. I find it emotionally draining to run myself. If that's the case just say "hey, I'm here to run Dungeons & Dragons the game of Heroic Fantasy where you explore Dungeons and slay Dragons, not the game where you are ******* gangster-pirates who murder people, how about you make some Dungeons & Dragons characters instead?"

[LibraryOgre]

How public is the knowledge of what happened? From what it sounds like, the party killed all the witnesses, and so if the crime isn't pinned on them, there may be no real consequences.

If you want consequences? Since they were killed with a bunch of negative energy, you might have child revenants who come after the priest.

[solidork]

Slipperychicken has the right of it.

[The Eye]

Excellent Chaotic Evil roleplaying. "The only people responsible for the welfare of or harm dealt to others are people who aren't me."

Anyway yeah expect literally everyone who hears about this instance except weirdo death worshippers (maybe) to despise them just on a general instinctive level. Especially any other slaves in the area they decide to pick a fight with, that might have more levels.

I mean the DM has total control here. He could have said, "As the kids see you approaching, the get down as negative energy blast thought the guards damaging their physical bodies and souls."

The kids didn't have to be harmed the Dm made it happen.

[Tanuki Tales]

I mean the DM has total control here. He could have said, "As the kids see you approaching, the get down as negative energy blast thought the guards damaging their physical bodies and souls."

The kids didn't have to be harmed the Dm made it happen.

That's probably not how that ability works.

If this is Pathfinder, it nukes every living thing in a set radius.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Your group's problem is a common one. The first and most important thing you can do is realize that this is an out-of-character (or "OOC") problem. That means simply plotting in-game vengeance might sound like a gratifying proposition, but it's ultimately not going to address the deeper issues, and may well make things harder. People can easily waste precious years of their roleplaying careers pursuing vendettas in-game to no avail. Your concerns need to be addressed outside the game, in the big scary world of real human interactions.

Next, you need to do a bit of soul-searching and get honest with yourself about what kind of game you want to run. Do you really want to spend your evenings seething at people describing how they murder imaginary children that you put time into writing? Because you don't have to. Roleplaying gets better than this. A lot better than this. Think about which of your players are even worth playing with. Players are a renewable resource. Don't spend your free time with people you hate.

Also, realize that you are the GM. You have some social power here. You can pause the session to talk to players about things before they unfold. If a player shouts "I stab the baby!", then you don't have to let that happen. You have the power to stop the game, talk about that, and even cancel ak player's actions in the most extreme circumstances. You can choose to exclude undesired people from your games and look for higher-quality people.

From there, you have some options. My most recommended is to, outside of game sessions, start a frank and open conversation with your players about what sort of game you want to run and how the players are conducting themselves, and ways that you can have fun. That may well be your best bet to move toward a more fun and fulfilling game, but it is a very hard thing to do, I know because I myself have struggled with it. That conversation can lead into a few different directions, and one of those may well be a conclusion that you do not want to run games for these people.

A lot of people online are going to goad you to pursue an in-game grudge against the players. Emotionally that is an easy and tempting reaction because it helps you to ignore the out-of-game sources of grievance. However it almost certainly detrimental to the reasons you wanted to start GMing in the first place. Did you really sign up for GMing to passive-aggressively write grudge-encounters to thwart people you despise in real life? I suppose this counts as a warning to avoid this path, because it can lead to a lot of frustration, spitefulness, wasted creativity, wasted time, and even burnout.

Okay but

Hello everyone! I am pretty new to GMing, having ran a few sessions with a group of friends.[emphasis mine]

Presumably these aren't just some dudes who answered a wanted ad Ludence put up. They're his friends, and he's playing a game with them. You don't have to torture yourself running a game you hate but you really shouldn't be like "yarr, it be my way or the highway!" to your friends either.

Sometimes it is the case that someone who is otherwise a really good friend of yours just isn't a good fit for D&D because you and he get enjoyment out of the game for radically different reasons. I've experienced that. On the other hand it also sounds like Ludence and all his friends are fairly new players. It could be very much early days to start going "incompatible playstyles! sever!"

If your players want to play evil alignment, and you're basically cool with that but you don't like the idea of them hurting children or stuff like that, give them something to focus on: maybe some [good] worthy adversaries to face. Put a Lawful Good constable in their town who's a 9th-level fighter and have taking him out become their goal, or something. I dunno, there's a lot of ways you can meet them halfway without the game having to meet only your vision or the players'.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Being stalked by creepy undead children seems appropriate.

[Mr Beer]

Being stalked by creepy undead children seems appropriate.

"Are you my mummy?"

[creepiness intensifies]

[Tanuki Tales]

"Are you my mummy?"

[creepiness intensifies]

Spoiler: I regret nothing

Show

[sktarq]

They could just sucked into ravenloft the way this seems to be going.

but really do they need consequences? Why? A: if you're not okay with letting them do this, don't play this kinda game. Talk to them OOC to fix this kind of thing. Do you want them to focus on going against worse evil than themselves? To grow their own power? What are your own comfort levels?

Use Session 0 (a sessions for planning, character creation, and getting people on the same page in terms of expectations and the like) to help with this.

but really do they need consequences? Why? B: Because you think having consequences for this could be a fun twist to the game? Well then. That could be gold mine. Undead children, perhaps one had a priest or other spellcaster relative who on finding out what happened to them decides on revenge. The authorities get involved and grab innocent people as the culprits (and do the PC do anything about it). A dark temple gets blamed and starts hunting them in order to clear their name. Have an imp show up trying to bring them into a LE direction in order to claim their souls. Or a Demon Lord of your choice sends a wee minion to use the party as a tool. -see what they do with either.

[Ludence]

Thanks everyone, for the responses. To clarify: I am okay with running a game like this, for now. Also, the two other CE PCs were in the same room, and they wouldnt have any trouble dealing with the guards alone. What the priest did was to jump up on the table, and nuke everyone in a large radius. (Pathfinder selective channel) leaving his allies unharmed.

I was also thinking the consequences to be part of (possibly) a new adventure. Just something to show my players that evil actions will bear consequence. I like the undead children idea. I am by no means tryimg to set up a TPK or anything like that, I just want to give them a memorable experience :)

[thamolas]

Only one of the kids needs a wealthy relative who can hire powerful magic-users to track down the party. And hire mercs to kidnap them and exact revenge. Actions should always have consequences.

[GloatingSwine]

Only one of the kids needs a wealthy relative who can hire powerful magic-users to track down the party. And hire mercs to kidnap them and exact revenge. Actions should always have consequences.

You don't need to go that far.

The original setup was that the kids were in some kind of slave barracks.

That means someone is going to be upset about their property. Someone just as unpleasant or more so than the party, but probably with considerably more resources.

And the party is going to be very short of allies.

[Mastikator]

Okay but
Presumably these aren't just some dudes who answered a wanted ad Ludence put up. They're his friends, and he's playing a game with them. You don't have to torture yourself running a game you hate but you really shouldn't be like "yarr, it be my way or the highway!" to your friends either.

Sometimes it is the case that someone who is otherwise a really good friend of yours just isn't a good fit for D&D because you and he get enjoyment out of the game for radically different reasons. I've experienced that. On the other hand it also sounds like Ludence and all his friends are fairly new players. It could be very much early days to start going "incompatible playstyles! sever!"

If your players want to play evil alignment, and you're basically cool with that but you don't like the idea of them hurting children or stuff like that, give them something to focus on: maybe some [good] worthy adversaries to face. Put a Lawful Good constable in their town who's a 9th-level fighter and have taking him out become their goal, or something. I dunno, there's a lot of ways you can meet them halfway without the game having to meet only your vision or the players'.

Oh come off it. Having a frank discussion with your friends about what kind of game everyone wants to play is not the same "my way or the highway" and you know it. If you can't have an honest and open conversation with someone then that someone is not your friend.

[Karl Aegis]

The consequences are: they suddenly don't find themselves in situations where legendary teenage swordsmen and babies can be murdered for a while. Seriously, if teenagers can survive a nuke like that they are pretty much legendary teenage swordsmen. You put them in a situation where Terribly Evil Actions (TM) could happen. They did Terribly Evil Actions (TM). Now, you have realized the error of your ways.

[lunaticfringe]

I'm gonna have to side with the Eye on this one. Don't put kids in dangerous areas. It's one thing if your PCs are breaking into orphanages & stabbing babies, but this is a horse of different color. Also in a pseudomedival standard fantasy setting kids die all time of Being Poor & neglected. I don't think anyone of note will care if some nameless slave kid was collateral damage. It's not like it's modern developed country Earth or anything.

[Ludence]

The consequences are: they suddenly don't find themselves in situations where legendary teenage swordsmen and babies can be murdered for a while. Seriously, if teenagers can survive a nuke like that they are pretty much legendary teenage swordsmen. You put them in a situation where Terribly Evil Actions (TM) could happen. They did Terribly Evil Actions (TM). Now, you have realized the error of your ways.

I did put them in the situation, but I dont feel like that was an error on my part. As a GM I just want every action to have a consequence. Especially Terribly Evil Actions (TM). That way makes them feel like they can actually impact the world around them, not just be bystanders.

[Ludence]

I mean the DM has total control here. He could have said, "As the kids see you approaching, the get down as negative energy blast thought the guards damaging their physical bodies and souls."

The kids didn't have to be harmed the Dm made it happen.

In pathfinder rules, everything in the radius is harmed by negative energy. IMO there was no way to stop it.

[Kane0]

Is everyone having fun? Then there is no problem.
Evil campaigns can be an absolute blast.
Coincidentally, Kaveman is also a wellspring of ideas for interesting game consequences.

[lunaticfringe]

I did put them in the situation, but I dont feel like that was an error on my part. As a GM I just want every action to have a consequence. Especially Terribly Evil Actions (TM). That way makes them feel like they can actually impact the world around them, not just be bystanders.

I don't think Every Action Has A Consequence Style is going over as well as you think. Why? Most of your players rolled the IDGAF alignment. That is usually a sign players are growing tired of being railroaded into Heavy Handed Moral Quandries. You play Evil because you want to have fun. Consequences will be stabbed, just like everything else. No 5 minute speeches about Doing the Right Thing required.

[Whyrocknodie]

To fit into the chaotic evil theme, I'd have the party encounter an allied evil entity who is currently purchasing child slaves for a premium. They totally killed the golden goose, wasting all those potentially valuable slaves.

P.S. Make sure the evil entity is in a hurry or they'll go find some more!

[Ludence]

I don't think Every Action Has A Consequence Style is going over as well as you think. Why? Most of your players rolled the IDGAF alignment. That is usually a sign players are growing tired of being railroaded into Heavy Handed Moral Quandries. You play Evil because you want to have fun. Consequences will be stabbed, just like everything else. No 5 minute speeches about Doing the Right Thing required.

Well, it is the only campaign we have played, so they can't be tired of something they never have experienced :P I don't wish to straight up "punish" or stop their Evil "Fun Run". As stated, I want them to feel see consequences of doing these actions, in form of anger of the good gods, or rewards from the evil gods. I'm mainly just asking for inspiration :))

[RazorChain]

Well, it's kind of your own fault that the kids died isn't it?

I mean he used the spell to kill the guards not the kids, the spell only "Hit" the kids becuase youw anted it to hit the kids.

So the only child killer is YOU! The DM!

I'm gonna have to side with the Eye on this one. Don't put kids in dangerous areas. It's one thing if your PCs are breaking into orphanages & stabbing babies, but this is a horse of different color. Also in a pseudomedival standard fantasy setting kids die all time of Being Poor & neglected. I don't think anyone of note will care if some nameless slave kid was collateral damage. It's not like it's modern developed country Earth or anything.

You put on those sexy clothes and went drinking, of course you got raped!

Blaming the DM for the death of those children is as stupid as victim blaming.

The DM's job is run the game in an non arbitrary manner, so changing the rules to save the children is taking away players agency. The guy who killed the children probably knew what was going to happen.

The PC's are evil
Solution: Run an empty world so they cant rape, murder and pillage?
Doesnt sound like much of a game to me