Dealing with CN Player characters

[taldanrebel2187]

So the party rogue got caught stealing from a nobleman's store. After she was arrested, the party Paladin decided to try and bribe an official. After that plan fell apart (along with the Paladin, heh) Things got really unhinged. The party had the barbarian break into the city jail, killing six guards and slitting the throat of the jailkeeper in the process and killing an NPC allied with the party. The party Barbarian has 24 strength when he's raging and hits for an average of 20 damage in a round. On a critical hit he did 47 damage to the captain of the guard, killing him immediately and then intimidating the remaining guards. After breaking the Rogue out, they went to the guard house over and killed the sleeping guards (all of whm failed their perception checks :/)

To cover their escape, the party's Monk started a bar fight and then burned the bar down, chaining the doors shut. Everyone inside died, including three NPCs relevant to the entire adventure path.

They fled from town and killed the remaining horses so the guards couldn't give chase. I actually had to end the session early, because the plot was entirely wrecked and derailed. I mean these were veteran players, and TBH I could see these characters actually doing "evil" actions in an unfair, corrupt LE town.

How do you veteran DMs handle parties like this? :O

[Xymor]

The Path to villainy starts with baby steps but quickly escalates.

Run with it. Now they are wanted murderers and the local Law Enforcement/Church/Army will have them on a wanted list. Don't let up have them tracked by Rangers and other scouts who lead more experienced Paladins and guards to arrest them.

Their wanted posters will be all over this town, not to mention neighboring towns so doing anything with civilized society will be extremely difficult now.

In Medieval times groups of 25 to 50 men were common to rundown criminals. In Fantasy land take into account magic, faster communication with magic, other adventuring groups looking to help out and even other villains that want to crush upcoming competition or recruit new blood.

Hope this helps!

[MurphysParadox]

So was this town a corrupt LE town? Were all the city guards evil? Were the townsfolk that the monk burned to death evil? If so, then at best they didn't do anything Good. Othrewise, tell them they are all evil because chaining a bar shut and burning everyone inside is evil. As is killing sleeping lawful city guards.

Your options from here are either restart the game saying that you don't want to run an evil campaign OR roll with it. So they want to play evil characters, great, make up an evil campaign for them. Create an organization that hunts down adventurers when they go bad and go after them.

It also depends on what the players want to do. If they just want to be a band of murdering thieves, then give them places to rob. Then when they come out of one such place, have this new group attack them with the intent of dragging them back to base and putting them on trial.

[Phntm888]

Well, it sounds like they either want a different campaign than what you're running, or the Paldin's player didn't expect to fall for trying to bribe an official, and then the party said, "Screw it, let's be Chaotic Evil." No matter what their reasons, talk to them about it before doing anything. That way all sides have an understanding of what's going on.

As to the campaign, you have a few options. Option 1, scrap the whole campaign and make the plot about a group of villains committing evil acts, with the main opposition now various forces of good in the world. This probably requires the most work, but allows the players to continue being the most vile people in the world.

Option 2 is to have the party captured by a Lawful Good authority, and then given a choice: death or accepting a Geas to complete a quest that happens to be the main adventure plot. The Geas can also set conditions on what they can and cannot do, such as how ruthless they are allowed to be. This requires the least work, but is pretty blatant railroading, which they might not appreciate.

Option 3 is the mulligan. Next session, declare that last week didn't happen or was a fever dream, and play the whole session over. This time, they hopefully don't do that and the campaign can continue as planned.

If they choose to continue on with either Option 1 or 2, then shift their alignments appropriately. Not only did they act with a complete disregard for the lawful authority of the town, they killed six guards during a jailbreak. They then "slit the throat of the jailkeeper," which says to me that they killed a defenseless and/or surrendered enemy. Those actions alone warrant a Chaotic consideration, but they then went and murdered sleeping guards, giving them absolutely no chance to fight back. That is a definitively evil act. The Monk then burned down a bar, after starting a fight, with everyone inside. He chained the doors shut, preventing any of those poor commoners (and relevant NPCs) from escaping.

My thoughts on the alignment shift: Everyone involved in the murder of the sleeping guardsmen becomes Evil. Everyone involved in the jailbreak moves one step down the Lawful-Chaotic axis (e.g. Lawful -> Neutral -> Chaotic). The monk shifts to Chaotic Evil regardless, given his actions.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Basically, a longer, wordier version of what Xymor and MurphysParadox said.

[taldanrebel2187]

Does RAW really forbid Paladins from smiting (read: wholesale slaughter) of a LE town? The guards were, technically speaking, mostly evil and corrupt as per the AP. I think the players just got carried away when we were all drinking :P

[Phntm888]

I was mainly referring to the Paladin bribing an official, as a Paladin's Code of Conduct does state that they have to uphold authority. I also interpreted your initial post as saying the Paladin had fallen when (s)he tried bribing the official.

Considering things from the perspective of a LE town, I'd say that, if the party truly felt the Rogue wouldn't get a fair trial, the jailbreak is justified. I think the Monk's actions of burning the inn down and trapping everyone inside are over the top, as is going out of their way to murder guards in their sleep, but if you don't want to force alignment shifts on them, let them know that you're letting things slide, but you won't next time. Just because the town may be LE, doesn't mean everyone in it is LE. Cheliax may be ruled by devil-worshippers, but not everyone in the nation worships devils.

As to your campaign, rename the plot-critical NPCs, recycle the stats, and then put them in the next town over. If the players haven't met them yet, they won't know the difference.

The fact they were drinking also helps mitigate things. In a game I'm currently playing in where the party is mostly LE, our Wizard got real chaotic after he'd had a few too many and we almost had actual inter-party conflict between him and another player. I've seen how easily drunk players can get carried away.

Edit: Which AP is it, if I can ask?

[Daniel Thrace]

Murdering an evil person should only allow the murder in two cases if one wishes to be considered not evil. One - self defense (this allows killing in most cases, so not murder). Two - you actually know the person is evil through evidence or magic, and to prevent further harm you confront them and likely have to strike them down. In a LE town I am sure a huge number of NPC's are Neutral and some even good (just stuck there).

That aside, evil or not evil isn't really what we need to debate. So how to deal with the situation? I agree with Phntm88, "Talk to them about what they want" and then consequence wise Xymor pretty much summed up a perfect type of response regardless of how things shake out (unless they really want a restart, which should come at a heavy penalty).

[Spastic Puma]

Some may disagree with me here, but I think it is important to let the party find ways to redeem their actions and play the neutral part of their alignment as well. Remember, 'neutral' people are capable of commiting horrible acts under the pressure of certain social situations. Let them reclaim that other part of them at some point any I think you'll have good results.

[Ginglebrix]

I think the name of the post is misleading. It should be called "How do I clean up the mess we made of my campaign after we were drinking and got out of hand with our fantasy fun?"

The problem is when everyone is drinking and having a good time, one PCs silly actions lead to another. Then they deal with those consequences by making further poor/chaotic decisions.

If you want to run a serious game, or run a game you have put a lot of time, money, and energy into, then I would refrain from overindulging in alcohol.

If you want to just get your friends together and have fun, throw caution to the wind, and make up a campaign or some adventures where you wont find yourself painted into a corner when people make decisions you couldn't anticipate or expect.

[krevon]

I would start with letting them encounter some very bad bounty hunters. Allow the bounty hunters to show the group wanted posters with their sketch on it and ask if they've seen them.

[Captain Wacky]

A "do over" might be the right thing to do if you guys were drinking. But talk to them first and see what they want to do. If you decide on a "do over" then no harm no foul. If you guys decide on rolling with it... then consider this.

1. They busted out the rogue after he/she broke the law (which was his/her fault to begin with), instead of bailing him/her out.
2. They killed an ally
3. They murdered civilians, painfully I might add.
4. They murdered helpless guards.

Here's what would happen in my world.

1. Local authorities charge the highway patrol (mostly rangers) to track them.
2. The local nobility will charge the any spell casters in their employ to track them with divination.
3. The people who died in the fire had families... mobs have a tendancy to form to help hunt them down.
4. Rolling randomly determine if anyone wealthy enough, who had family die because of this, had ties to the assassins guild.

I had something along those lines happen back in the day. I told this story some monthes ago, but here it is again as an example.

Copy/Paste
I had a group once that were going to a well known dungeon area. They were riding on a barge they hired from the local Gypsies. One of them started playing with the water and one of the gypsies asked them to stop cause there's water trolls in the area and while the blessing on the boat caused most things to ignore them, they might attack if you attract their attention.

The player ignored him and continued messing with the water. I rolled for encounter and guess what came up... trolls. They attacked the boat and were just looking for a meal. They dragged off several gypsies who were never seen again. The Gypsies informed the PCs that they were heading home and will have to answer for what they did.

Two of the PCs shot one of them full of arrows, but the other got away. The PCs didn't give chase feeling that the boy would fear for his life and keep his mouth shut. So they continued on their adventure.

The Gypsy boy told his family... his family being the gypsy camp. The elders promply got in contact with the local assassins guild and put a hit out on the two who shot the other full of arrows. The guild was paid handsomely and sent out the "Prime Knife".

The Guild was waiting for them outside the dungeon. They incapacitated the PCs but left them alive and awake to witness. "The water-folk take their revenge" then the executioners swords came down for a Coup de Gace. The assassins left the other PCs who had to change their underware.

Anyways, that's how that particular situation got handled.

Keep in mind the authorities ->CAN'T<- let this go unpunished.

In regards to the paladin... if he didn't kill anyone... he also did nothing to stop it, which is what he was supposed to do, even if you fall from grace, you are still under oath. At the very least, he'll need an atonement after his geas.

If he killed people... His order is going to want their own justice, they're not going to sit back and let him smear their reputation. A smear on one is a smear on all. IF they can capture him alive he would be publically executed. The paladin's order is going to want to make a good show for the people and show that this behavior is not tolerated. He'd be stripped of his title first and the families who were wronged get to debate on execution method. Honestly... I don't see a simple atonement or geas working to restore his place in the fold... Paladins are held to a higher standard of morality and the consiquences for breaking that morality should be more severe.

The others would be publically executed IF they bothered to capture them alive.

So, if they're low level, the powers that be shouldn't have too much trouble finding them. They have rescources at their dispoal that the party simply can't compete with.

If the party is mid-level, they can hide and fight for a while, but if they want to live for any length of time, they have to leave the country. Or better yet, move to the back water areas.

High level... this would lead to armies marching... eventually. Other high level groups being brought to bare. Afterall, you can't let people who are That powerful run amuk. They've suddenly become a threat to the powers that be and they can't go unchecked. It's how the powers that be Stay the powers that be.

[Sub_Zero]

PC's always use an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes it's too little, sometimes too much, but it's almost always inappropriate....

[Atarlost]

A paladin would certainly fall for bribery. If the law was corrupt he should have gone in smiting. I cannot understand how paladin orders can exist without being in a state of war with the place without falling en masse.

[taldanrebel2187]

Honestly I think very few Paladins are well role-played. Few players really read the Code of Conduct and realize that they can fall for what seems trivial to someone.

Probably a case of PFS being a little too lenient with these sorts of things.

[Captain Wacky]

Atarlost wrote:

A paladin would certainly fall for bribery. If the law was corrupt he should have gone in smiting. I cannot understand how paladin orders can exist without being in a state of war with the place without falling en masse.

I'll have to disagree with that. The law is the law, corrupt or not. They are as much for upholding it as they are about upholding good... Depending on the order I suppose.

[CrazyTrain]

I agree with asking them what kind of campaign they want to play in. If they endorse their actions, have fun with it and let them have fun with it.

Yes, some authorities may come after them, but their actions may be the start of a general rising - oppressed peasants, criminal elements coming out in the open, slaves seeking to overthrow the government and get rich in the process, rival politicians/nobles wanting a place at the top of the society, etc. The PCs may want to go on the run and plow new ground.

Work in your previously-scheduled plot elements if and when you can.

You're telling a story. Is it a you're-not-gonna-get-away-with-this story? Or is it about a wild ride like the sack of Lindisfarne?

Step out of the role of defender-of-NPC-world. I have trouble with this myself sometimes. You've created the world in which the players act. The purpose is for the players to have fun. You do not need to defend your creation - the world - from the PCs. You need to facilitate the players' fun. The possibility of PC failure - punishment in this case - needs to be there for it to be fun, but they should have a good chance of overcoming it and getting their way, even if it is chaotic or evil.

Jake Spoon got away with the murder of the dentist in Lonesome Dove. The town sheriff had problems of his own and couldn't bring Spoon to justice. Authorities can be inept and under-funded. Blue Duck got away with everthing you can imagine for years and decades, in spite of Texas rangers pursuing him. Conan the Barbarian robbed and looted his way into becoming a king. Run towards fun with what the players give you.

You should all have a good time. That's why you play. Rapping their knuckles with a ruler won't be fun for anyone.

[aboniks]

This sort of thing is why I can't bring myself to use adventure modules, simply because they can leave a DM feeling stuck in exactly the way the OP is.

I've had parties (and been in parties) that have gone off their alignment rails before, although I have to admit that this is a pretty spectacular example. The monk burning down the bar is priceless.

All the previous suggestions are good, I think. Unless the alignment shifts will break the module, I'd impose them and side-quest accordingly until the party can get back to it's original alignments (if that's what they want). That may take a few levels. If that breaks the module because they're too strong, there's nothing keeping you from abandoning it and telling a different story.

Unless the monk was an archetype that sidesteps the requirement for remaining lawful, he's going to be hurting when it comes time to level up.

Of course there's always the "it was all a dream" mulligan. You could certainly do something interesting with that if you build your own events around who/what sent that dream to all the members of the party. Something that wanted to give them a taste of chaos and evil, but why?

[David knott 242]

Alignment is not the issue here -- we have had no such problems in my group even though the predominant alignment in that group is also chaotic neutral.

The problem is that your players are playing anti-social jerks who think that their actions will have no consequences. The implied contract between player and GM in a typical campaign is that you won't unfairly overwhelm them with too powerful enemies if they show a minimal amount of respect to the non-monstrous NPCs they encounter in what are supposed to be non-combat situations. It is rather hard to advance any other sort of plot when your players have unnecessarily turned themselves into fugitives who deserve to be caught and killed.

[cnetarian]

The characters are acting psychotic-neutral (pushing the line to psychotic-evil), so that's the way the campaign should go. Get yourself a copy of the Newman/Redford film, maybe some of the Eastwood "dollar" movies, and reset your campaign to match.

[bfobar]

Congratulations! You have an evil campaign party now! I think your choices are either run with it and let them be anti-heros or super villians, or use a "rocks fall; everybody dies" and start a new campaign and possibly have somebody else GM.

[Atarlost]

David knott 242 wrote:

Alignment is not the issue here -- we have had no such problems in my group even though the predominant alignment in that group is also chaotic neutral.

The problem is that your players are playing anti-social jerks who think that their actions will have no consequences.

taldanrebel2187 (ie. the OP) wrote:

I think the players just got carried away when we were all drinking :P

corrected wrote:

Alignment is not the issue here -- we have had no such problems in my group even though the predominant alignment in that group is also chaotic neutral.

The problem is that your players are drunk.

Fixed that for you.

Next time you want to play a campaign run it dry. Next time you want to game drunk run a oneshot. I'd suggest We Be Goblins or its sequel or maybe something for the Paranoia RPG.

[bfobar]

Side note: We Be Goblins is really fun drunk and probably should have a drinking game made for it. (If a player feels the need to sing their goblin rhyme more than once, take another drink. Take 1 drink per hp lost due to friendly fire. Drink entire cup if a pc dies due to friendly fire. I'm sure there are more.)

[Vamptastic]

If I ran games, Paladins wouldn't fall for any reason, ever. Even if their alignment changed, they'd keep their super-powers.

[bfobar]

Vamptastic wrote:

If I ran games, Paladins wouldn't fall for any reason, ever. Even if their alignment changed, they'd keep their super-powers.

Your games, your rules.

[Vamptastic]

Also, am I the only one who things that the OC's game he described sounds really, really fun, just for the ridiculousness of it? I mean, they burned a bar filled with people down, and shot the horses on their way out. How is that not brilliant and great?

[CrazyTrain]

cnetarian wrote:

maybe some of the Eastwood "dollar" movies, and reset your campaign to match.

Aye! What would Blondie/Tuco/Angel Eyes do? That'd be great fun ;)

[DrDeth]

Atarlost wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Alignment is not the issue here -- we have had no such problems in my group even though the predominant alignment in that group is also chaotic neutral.

The problem is that your players are playing anti-social jerks who think that their actions will have no consequences.

taldanrebel2187 (ie. the OP) wrote:

I think the players just got carried away when we were all drinking :P

corrected wrote:

Alignment is not the issue here -- we have had no such problems in my group even though the predominant alignment in that group is also chaotic neutral.

The problem is that your players are drunk.

Fixed that for you.

Next time you want to play a campaign run it dry. Next time you want to game drunk run a oneshot. I'd suggest We Be Goblins or its sequel or maybe something for the Paranoia RPG.

Dean Vernon Wormer: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. "

[Vamptastic]

It is if you become the president.

[aboniks]

Vamptastic wrote:

Also, am I the only one who things that the OC's game he described sounds really, really fun, just for the ridiculousness of it? I mean, they burned a bar filled with people down, and shot the horses on their way out. How is that not brilliant and great?

It's not just you. I was giggling when I finished reading OP's post.

[aboniks]

DM: The drow takes himself hostage.

PC: What?

DM: Roll Sense Motive.

[Vamptastic]

Play a Mage who uses scrolls all the time. "Excuse me while I whip this out..."

[Lucio]

Personally, I'd change the hook into my plot to better suit the changed circumstances and carry on. For example, maybe a powerful bounty hunter offers them a shot at clearing their names if they undertake a specific task for him, or maybe the evil opposition offers them a chance to prove themselves worthy of joining their organisation and sends them out on a quest.

The other side to this is to also have consequences to their actions, maybe they get a reputation as trouble makers and have difficulty getting resources (pay more, or flat out refused service), maybe they get interupted once or twice overnight by a group of bounty hunters or lawmen and so on. It's not about being vindictive, but providing some interesting challenges to the group, after all the players chose their actions, so it's usually a good sign that they want to head in this kind of direction.

One last thing to do though before you try any of this, ask them if they actually wanted to break the law so much, or if they felt railroaded into making those choices. It is possible to engineer a situation which forces the PC's to break the law, as soon as one of the party is captured or killed.

[Owly]

Some good answers here, I'll just add my two copper pieces:

I call it "The Rule of Your Peers", and it means that you tend to attract the people who are most like YOU. If you're Chaotic Neutral and you "don't give a ph***!" then you are going to find yourself in the company of the kind of people who also "don't give a ph***!". Selfish people tend to attract more selfish people. That CN bard or sorcerer is going to have a hard time finding places to buy and sell high-end items because everyone is going to think he's a brigand. He's going to find it impossible to get a Resurrection or Raise Dead because no one in the holy orders will trust him.

And remember, there is always someone more powerful than you, and some other organization that is better informed/better equipped than you. You're CN? CE? The thieves guild in town heard you were around, and they don't like you. In-fact, the guildmaster wants you run out of town. How did they know? They got connections, now get yer hands up!

In other words, those who make the effort to be lawful and/or good, get to enjoy the benefits of a lawful and good society, i.e. trust and mutual respect.

As for shenanigans and murderhobo-ing, this is a necessary evil. Sometimes players WANT to play with that kind of freedom. Do your best to keep your world real, but don't get in the way of their fun, unless it's egregious and tedious (and bad for paladins). Then when they want a better game, tell them you're ready.

[137ben]

aboniks wrote:

DM: The drow takes himself hostage.

PC: What?

DM: Roll Sense Motive.

Reminds me of Sonic Heroes. A group of mercenaries is hired to save an anonymous person, who was kidnapped by Eggman. They save the anonymous person only to discover

Spoiler:

that is was Eggman. Eggman kidnapped Eggman!

Well, the kidnapper was actually a fake Eggman, but still.

[MattR1986]

People playing Chaotic Neutral characters acting dickish, engaging in reckless, destructive behavior; and brazenly derailing the game?

Nooooo! Say it isn't so!

It really should just be renamed "Chaotic - Do whatever I want and use alignment as a scapegoat because I really want to play an evil character but I'm not allowed to." Might be kind of hard to abbreviate though.

I honestly wonder if DMs should restrict CN until they've played with a Player long enough to show he can play it responsibly. Some Players can use it just fine without going off the deep end. Some use it as a license to turn the game into Pathfinder the Masquerade without regard for the DM or the other Players.

[CrazyTrain]

I have played many CN characters. They have each believed that personal freedom for all is the best way to ensure a balance between good and evil. None have been psychotic, dishonest, dilettante-ish, scatterbrained, ADHD-esque or evil under another name.

It's true too many players hide behind their characters' alignment - LG characters too - and use it as a replacement for a personality. And that's a shame.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed some posts. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

[Douglas Muir 406]

David knott 242 wrote:

It is rather hard to advance any other sort of plot when your players have unnecessarily turned themselves into fugitives who deserve to be caught and killed.

^ This. I had this happen a number of times, back in the day. Eventually I did a partial TPK and, lo and behold, the PCs started being much better citizens.

If you run your campaign as a paper world that the PCs can rip up without consequences, then a lot of players will just play that way. That can be okay in some circumstances (sandbox campaign set in the lawless port city), but most of the time it spirals down into non-fun. And it definitely makes it hard to move a plot forward.

Doug M.

[Douglas Muir 406]

MattR1986 wrote:

It really should just be renamed "Chaotic - Do whatever I want and use alignment as a scapegoat because I really want to play an evil character but I'm not allowed to." Might be kind of hard to abbreviate though.

^ Also this.

It really is the most annoying alignment. It *can* be played well, or even brilliantly. But for every player who manages to play a convincing John Constantine or Tyler Durden, there are six who are like "Daaaah, I can do whatever I want now, huhuhuh!"

Quote:

I honestly wonder if DMs should restrict CN until they've played with a Player long enough to show he can play it responsibly. Some Players can use it just fine without going off the deep end. Some use it as a license to turn the game into Pathfinder the Masquerade without regard for the DM or the other Players.

I completely agree with this. Some players can handle CN, and, well, some cannot. If I'm going to use alignment, I encourage new players that I don't know to start NG or CG. For most players, those alignments are perfectly okay to play (yes, there are exceptions -- I said most) and they allow the DM to step in and prevent various sorts of crazy. No, your character is Chaotic GOOD, he can't kill all the town guards just because they're chasing him! Your character is Neutral GOOD, he can't gouge the orc's eyes out to make it tell him where the treasure is! And so forth.

Honestly, I just hate CN. Anyone who showed up at the table and announced they wanted to play CN would get immediate side-eye from me. I'd honestly prefer someone who said they wanted to play CE. At least then the cards are on the table, and there might be something interesting or funny in store. (Or not. A lot of CE PCs end up trying to do Belkar Bitterleaf or Heath Ledger's Joker. Even so, the odds are still better than with CN.)

Doug M.

[The Beard]

bfobar wrote:

Side note: We Be Goblins is really fun drunk and probably should have a drinking game made for it. (If a player feels the need to sing their goblin rhyme more than once, take another drink. Take 1 drink per hp lost due to friendly fire. Drink entire cup if a pc dies due to friendly fire. I'm sure there are more.)

We be goblins does have a drinking game for it if you live where I do, and believe me, you will be completely hammered well before the end of it.

[137ben]

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

It is rather hard to advance any other sort of plot when your players have unnecessarily turned themselves into fugitives who deserve to be caught and killed.

^ This. I had this happen a number of times, back in the day. Eventually I did a partial TPK and, lo and behold, the PCs started being much better citizens.

If you run your campaign as a paper world that the PCs can rip up without consequences, then a lot of players will just play that way. That can be okay in some circumstances (sandbox campaign set in the lawless port city), but most of the time it spirals down into non-fun. And it definitely makes it hard to move a plot forward.

Doug M.

(emphasis mine)

I don't have anything to add to this (I agree with what you said), other than that Forum Oxymorons are awesome!

[The Beard]

Clearly it's a good idea to kill your players because they didn't follow your campaign idea to the letter. I mean, it's not like someone should maybe have been "fair" about it and given them a chance or anything, right? Some people like campaigns with a lot of violence; a lot do, in fact. What is the point in doing the equivalent of DM lightning to the party for choosing the path of bloodshed? Yeah, there are consequences, but individual authorities generally won't travel beyond their jurisdiction. They'll just rely on bounty hunters (that should rarely work together contrary to popular belief) to do the job beyond the borders. They can spread the words to other sources of law and/or authority as well. That doesn't mean the PCs just just be insta-screwed because they're evil. Reward them for doing what they need to do to survive the situation as opposed to going lulz I give you impossible odds now. ... Well, if they happen to just go HERR DERRR with their survival methods then yeah, off'em. I'd say the same about a good party.

[Apotheosis]

The Beard wrote:

Clearly it's a good idea to kill your players because they didn't follow your campaign idea to the letter. I mean, it's not like someone should maybe have been "fair" about it and given them a chance or anything, right? Some people like campaigns with a lot of violence; a lot do, in fact. What is the point in doing the equivalent of DM lightning to the party for choosing the path of bloodshed? Yeah, there are consequences, but individual authorities generally won't travel beyond their jurisdiction. They'll just rely on bounty hunters (that should rarely work together contrary to popular belief) to do the job beyond the borders. They can spread the words to other sources of law and/or authority as well. That doesn't mean the PCs just just be insta-screwed because they're evil. Reward them for doing what they need to do to survive the situation as opposed to going lulz I give you impossible odds now. ... Well, if they happen to just go HERR DERRR with their survival methods then yeah, off'em. I'd say the same about a good party.

I'm having trouble with correlating 'not following the campaign idea to the letter' and 'indiscriminately killed their friends, innocent townspeople, innocent guards, and whoever else they wanted'. There seems to be a small distinction between the two, wherein 'small' is defined as 'so incredibly massive as to not even be talking about the same subject'.

While it's true that some people do indeed like 'violent campaigns' (which seems to me to be virtually every campaign ever played; perhaps you meant to say 'EVIL campaigns'?), it doesn't seem like the OP is one of these individuals. If he isn't, then he is under no obligation whatsoever to be the person suffering through a game he doesn't enjoy simply because others do (and obviously vice versa).

OP, if it were me and I felt it was a one-off happenstance because they were drunk, I'd retcon back to before the inebriation and pick back up if at all possible. Cutting the campaign is likely to engender bad feelings, and it seems that continuing it isn't your idea of fun (nor would it be mine). Barring that, take the lesser of two evils and end it. I'd also put CN on probation for a while.

[The Beard]

It appears the quote feature messed up without me noticing. If you'll look up a few posts, you will be able to see the one I was responding to. Namely the person that decided, "Well, they aren't obeying my campaign to the letter; time to DM lightning."

As for the OP, well... he might have to cut it if he isn't willing to accommodate the wishes of his players (assuming of course that they do genuinely want a savage, vicious sort of campaign).

[MattR1986]

By default, D&D and its counterparts are a "heroic game" where good people slay meanies and bad guys. It's usually clear from day 1 of a campaign if that's what the game will be when you're on a quest to kill the raiding goblins or rescue Prince Derpy or whatever. Players coming in disguised as CN so they can suddenly and unexpectedly go on murder sprees and play Pathfinder the Masquerade is not just detouring from railroading, it's dickish behavior. A lot of (not all) people never seem to think about the DM and what he wants for HIS game. It's all about "me" and how I can be entertained regardless of whether you pooched months of preparation and a whole campaign without asking the DM first if he's ok with this type of behavior in his game.