So I let one of my players DM for me last week as I wanted to play the other week and we were put into a fighting ring with some npcs we had encountered before, the last time they fought I had there be an enchantment that would turn all damage into nonlethal. However this time around the npcs being forced by some dark evil figure dispelled these enchantments and it became a battle to the death. this wouldn't be so bad if I had been told beforehand and these were semi essential NPCs and the small fact that amongst the NPCs was a 12 yr old girl, 14 yr old boy, and a 16 year old boy. long story short 1 of the the boys was brutally murdered (would have been both if not for our lawful good Monk) as well as the 3 adult npcs. of course they all had magical tattoos that turned them into flesh pudding if any of them talked. I'm unsure of what I should do at this point as there needs to be some kind of consequence that feels substantial but doesn't make me the brutal cruel DM. As a somewhat new DM I'd like some suggestions about ways I can make consequences that seem fair but don't feel like a tap on the wrist.
Surviving family could put out a bounty, or The characters could receive a price on their head for capture from a local law enforcement.
Did the DM give the PCs in the fighting ring a Healing skill check to notice that the supposedly nonlethal damage was really lethal damage? If not, you can roleplay it as the dark evil figure had an illusion going to hide his or her change to the fighting ring rules. You could save the reputation of the party with a detective interviewing the audience with people saying, "Yeah, it looked like the usual fight with bruises instead of slashes, but then the boy dropped dead. And now, an hour later, you can see all the real wounds."
You can even involve the party, such as them hiring the detective, or a smart party member not directly involved in the fight serving as the detective.
That won't necessarily stop a surviving family member from wanting revenge against the party because they did the actual killing, but to the PCs proving their innocent intent is often important.
It depends on your particular world, but generally in a faux-medieval setting 16 is certainly an adult and 14 likely is.
From what I can tell of your story, the one morally (and legally if their is evidence) who is at fault is the 'dark evil figure.' The PCs might feel bad, but unless you are missing key detail they were not at fault.
Despite that an NPC that is apparently important is dead. That will be a consequence, exactly what and how depends of course on why that person was important to the story.
Of course even though the PCs were not really responsible, various people ranging from law enforcement to family members could believe that they are which could result in a variety of negative effects, many already mentioned.
You don't say why you want to impose consequences on your PCs. I would expect that the characters are angry with being manipulated and want revenge on the dark evil figure and so are plenty motivated. Further consequences don't seem necessary to move the story along and probably won't make the game more fun.
It depends on your particular world, but generally in a faux-medieval setting 16 is certainly an adult and 14 likely is.
From what I can tell of your story, the one morally (and legally if their is evidence) who is at fault is the 'dark evil figure.' The PCs might feel bad, but unless you are missing key detail they were not at fault.
Despite that an NPC that is apparently important is dead. That will be a consequence, exactly what and how depends of course on why that person was important to the story.
Of course even though the PCs were not really responsible, various people ranging from law enforcement to family members could believe that they are which could result in a variety of negative effects, many already mentioned.
You don't say why you want to impose consequences on your PCs. I would expect that the characters are angry with being manipulated and want revenge on the dark evil figure and so are plenty motivated. Further consequences don't seem necessary to move the story along and probably won't make the game more fun.
it's a victorian era campaign so yeah, and the guest GM has since quit for the foreseeable future, I do plan for a relative to send them a trapped package but other than that. I'm not looking to punish my players but more do to drive home the weight of the immoral crime they've committed. I am giving the choice of either going on a quest to revive their fallen opponents or to keep following the main storyline but should they choose not to redeem themselves I want some better ideas than a package trapped with a Night Terrors spell
let's just assume that - since the dm said the12 y.o., the 14 y.o. and the 16 y.o. were kids... that in his campaign setting, they ARE kids (regardless of what medeival times on earth was like).
to the OP - you have left out info that is relevant. you say they murdered the kids in an ultimate immoral act.. but also that the pcs were thrown into the fighting ring.... these things are a bit incongruous without additional info.
- did they voluntarily enter the fighting ring or were they forced to fight against their will.
- if they chose not to fight - what would the consequence have been.?
- were the npcs wearing masks or some other desguises to hide that there were kids among them?
- Did the PCs know they were dealing lethal damage? and if so, did they do anything to try to switch to non lethal?
- Did the dead kids have the same tattoo as the npcs that melted for trying too talk?
- did anyone writes the melting into a puddle thing?
- were any of the pcs magic users? (what reason would people hhave to think the pcs melted npcs into puddles?)
there may be more questions... but try answering those first.
if the pcs were forced to fight in the ring under penalty of death, and they were being attacked by armed assailants, they had a right tho defend themselves, and the only people responsible for the deaths would be the organizer of the fight and whoever put the magic tattoos on the npcs.
were the dead npcs especially lived by the town or something? if the pcs are now free - it's possible no one will do business with them...
best plot direction is to get pcs to make peace with family of the slain and work together to topple the power of the evil npcs that are truly responsible for the kids' deaths.
I already addressed this in your duplicate thread (didn't realize you had posted this twice till now), but in medevial times, a 14 year old was an adult, as they were more than capable of taking care of themselves. Unless you plan on punishing them every single time they kill an adult, there should be no punishment, because they didn't kill a child, rather they killed an adult.
this is not a medieval campaign and I hadn't realised I posted this twice
Can this Tatoo be studied and reproduced ? If I give that sort of things to any of my NPC that's the first things my players would want to do... :p
On topic, if your PC want to fix this a big quest to retrieve what is needed to rez the NPC can fix this... ;)
let's just assume that - since the dm said the12 y.o., the 14 y.o. and the 16 y.o. were kids... that in his campaign setting, they ARE kids (regardless of what medeival times on earth was like).
to the OP - you have left out info that is relevant. you say they murdered the kids in an ultimate immoral act.. but also that the pcs were thrown into the fighting ring.... these things are a bit incongruous without additional info.
- did they voluntarily enter the fighting ring or were they forced to fight against their will.
- if they chose not to fight - what would the consequence have been.?
- were the npcs wearing masks or some other desguises to hide that there were kids among them?
- Did the PCs know they were dealing lethal damage? and if so, did they do anything to try to switch to non lethal?
- Did the dead kids have the same tattoo as the npcs that melted for trying too talk?
- did anyone writes the melting into a puddle thing?
- were any of the pcs magic users? (what reason would people hhave to think the pcs melted npcs into puddles?)
there may be more questions... but try answering those first.
if the pcs were forced to fight in the ring under penalty of death, and they were being attacked by armed assailants, they had a right tho defend themselves, and the only people responsible for the deaths would be the organizer of the fight and whoever put the magic tattoos on the npcs.
were the dead npcs especially lived by the town or something? if the pcs are now free - it's possible no one will do business with them...
best plot direction is to get pcs to make peace with family of the slain and work together to topple the power of the evil npcs that are truly responsible for the kids' deaths.
- They voluntarily entered the ring it was the kids who were being forced to fight
-had they chosen not to fight the npcs would have killed them unless a diplomacy or intimidate roll was made (I can't know for certain I was not DMing)-there were no disguises involved both parties knew who they were fighting
- the PCs knew very well they were dealing lethal damage, and only the monk attempted to do otherwise
they saved 2 out of 3 kids but they still got turned into pudding by the tattoos, even the bodies of the adults got pasted.
-I'm the only magic user in the party as a lawful good sorcerer so having consequences for myself when I'm the Main DM and often don't play would be pointless
You want to drive the point home? Depends on the real personalities of your players. If they do not redeem themselves have word of their actions spread. Have people in other places distrust them because they knowingly murdered children. Have shop keeps and inn keepers deny them service because of the act. This can be used as a plot hook so tha they are forced to stay in disreputable places where bad things can happen to them. Have a known murderer mention infront of them that at least he didn't kill children. If your players are good natured it should drive the point home. If they are fine with being evil, then nothing will really be a punishment that dissuades them in the future.
@King_Namazu - So you, as a player during the game, decided to have your character purposefully kill a number of innocent children... children that had been thrown into a fighting ring against their will.
Why did you do it? Were you wrapped up in the moment (adrenaline educed blood-lust)? Were they attacking you so successfully that you feared for your life? Did you just not give a #&@%?
Did your character know the other PCs? or was your character a stranger to them? Who took the first lethal swing (or magical attack) on the kids?
Was the fighting ring an illegal black market thing (as in movies such as Lionheart, Pit Fighter, Kickboxer, etc), or a government sanctioned institution (e.g., roman gladiators)
@King_Namazu - So you, as a player during the game, decided to have your character purposefully kill a number of innocent children... children that had been thrown into a fighting ring against their will.
Why did you do it? Were you wrapped up in the moment (adrenaline educed blood-lust)? Were they attacking you so successfully that you feared for your life? Did you just not give a #&@%?
Did your character know the other PCs? or was your character a stranger to them? Who took the first lethal swing (or magical attack) on the kids?
Was the fighting ring an illegal black market thing (as in movies such as Lionheart, Pit Fighter, Kickboxer, etc), or a government sanctioned institution (e.g., roman gladiators)
I'm a lawful good sorcerer and I didn't kill anyone, one of my homebrewed weapons is a truncheon that deals nonlethal and i have one and that was my plan, this fight was legal as it was meant as a training exercise for the monster hunters guild my players are a part of, my character is no stranger to them and it would have been either our LN Fighter, or CN rogue (who killed a kid).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole set-up seems ridiculous. I'm all for moral hazards and such but killing kids is something I would never find acceptable or morally plausible. Forget that guest GM and just retcon the whole thing. Whoever ran that game was a sick individual.
I have come across a few situations like this, where players have jumped the gun or have miss interpreted a situation that resulted in a the death of an innocent. General I employ a heavy amount of role-play with NPC's that have suffered from the consequences of the action. I then set back and observe the players willingness to role-play their characters LG nature. Noting that LG is not as strict as a paladins code, and each individual reflects their own special interpretation on the alignment, I believe it is as much the GM's responsibility to role-play the NPC's reaction to such an act as it is the players job to properly play out their characters response. This kind of situation could very well be a divining moment for the character and have a long term impact on their perspective. I would consider an alignment shift only if the player continues to commit questionable acts with situational excuses for those acts. If the player decides not to role-play and hand waves the situation, then I would include some in-game mechanics that have an actual effect on the character. Some of those have been mentioned above in other posts.
So I plan for on of the mother's of the adults to be an old lady wizard as we have no spellcasters in our group or healers so magic is kind of the boogeyman for my players as none of them are seasoned vets and know nothing about magic in this game, and so my next question is besides the obvious ones like contagion, night terrors, and bestow curse what are some good trap spells with long term effects? or perhaps cursed items? (already gave them a loadstone at one point it was quite a challenge for them).
In my opinion, it seems to me that you are pissed about what the guest DM did, and to a lesser extent what the PCs did when he was running the game, and are planning on taking that anger out on the characters (and possibly the players.)
My advice is don't do that.
It absolutely won't make the game more fun, and that is the first rule.
Coming up with a way to 'fix' the problem is cool. Telling your players they wake up and the last session was just a dream is cool, whatever it takes to get your story back on track, but the whole punishment thing you seem set on strikes me as a really bad idea that will probably destroy your game.
In my opinion, it seems to me that you are pissed about what the guest DM did, and to a lesser extent what the PCs did when he was running the game, and are planning on taking that anger out on the characters (and possibly the players.)
My advice is don't do that.
It absolutely won't make the game more fun, and that is the first rule.
Coming up with a way to 'fix' the problem is cool. Telling your players they wake up and the last session was just a dream is cool, whatever it takes to get your story back on track, but the whole punishment thing you seem set on strikes me as a really bad idea that will probably destroy your game.
I'd like people to not make assumptions about me, my players, and my guest GM. I do not seek revenge and quite frankly I couldn't give two s~~*s about the NPCs but to act like there is no punishment from killing 6 people including children and there are no consequences for their actions tells them just that. There are no consequences to your actions and you can do whatever the hell you want with no repercussion.
Do your players know that thay can take a -4 on their attacks and do non lethal damage? If so, why did they choose to actually KILL the opponents?
If they did not know then I am guessing that they would have gone that option if they were good characters.
Also, what forced the PC's to actually fight? I mean if they had not then the kids would have been killed by their captors. Was personally killing them somehow more merciful?
Also this 'guest DM' who dropped this in your lap and now is not playing sounds a little shady. To do this to your game and then quit seems suspicious.
Do your players know that thay can take a -4 on their attacks and do non lethal damage? If so, why did they choose to actually KILL the opponents?
If they did not know then I am guessing that they would have gone that option if they were good characters.
Also, what forced the PC's to actually fight? I mean if they had not then the kids would have been killed by their captors. Was personally killing them somehow more merciful?
Also this 'guest DM' who dropped this in your lap and now is not playing sounds a little shady. To do this to your game and then quit seems suspicious.
I'm fairly certain they did know they could do non lethal, at the time we didn't they were being controlled but that's not really an excuse for killing the kid who wasn't much of a threat and not really doing any attempt to talk them down or spare them at all. I've made nonlethal weapons readily available in this game as well because in a non medieval society I knew situations like this might come up. the monster hunters guild my players are apart of and this campaign revolves around is a branch of the government, they have some minor authority in the form of being able to make an arrest and getting into places citizens aren't allowed like the sewers or onto crime scenes but that's the extent of what they can do and they receive no leniency on crimes they commit, fortunately this time it was self defence and I will be giving them the chance to revive these NPCs next session however if they choose not to they will have to live with the consequences of their mistake
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole set-up seems ridiculous. I'm all for moral hazards and such but killing kids is something I would never find acceptable or morally plausible. Forget that guest GM and just retcon the whole thing. Whoever ran that game was a sick individual.
agreed.
Something sounds really off here.
My internet is messing up so I can't get the edit to work, so I'm posting this here.
If you must go through with punishing the players, have a family member present them with a Needful Doll, saying it belonged to the kid. Since they probably will feel bad, they will take it, causing it to bind to them. There. Thematic curse.
DO you understand the meaning of "Semi-essential"? yes I would have liked to reuse the NPCs later in the Story but they were in no way essential to the campaign and I was fully prepared from the day I rolled their stats to have them Die. I don't get attached to NPCs. now once again I'd like for you to not assume that I'm being a prick to my player as well as assuming you know what happened in the session as there was much that could be done and it was still in their control to do nonlethal damage. I won't deny my guest GM made a linear plot and stripped away a great deal of our control but that is why I am putting the power to revive these NPCs and control back into their hands.
this thread is beginning to wear on my patience, I'm asking for advice on creative ways on how to handle this situation NOT to be lectured on how you think I GM, what you think my intentions are as a GM or what you think of the gritty horror side to my campaign.
The problem is the PC's aren't guilty of anything. They went into a situation where they had prior experience with the the combat being nonlethal, and their attackers dispelled the enchantment that made it so. If the PC's didn't know that they had absolutely no reason to hold back, if they did then the first thing they'd think is that the NPC's are trying to kill them so they have to defend themselves. They couldn't reason with the controlled NPC's that were controlled to attack and cursed to die if talking. Did your character yell take it easy on them during the fight? Were the PC's so much better than their attackers that they knew they could win the battle with a handicap? The PC's were placed in a no-win situation and chose the option that had them survive. Punishing them for not allowing a TPK and ending the campaign seems rather harsh.
Mate just read my comments in the thread I'm tired of explaining it to every person that comes into this thread pointing fingers at me and shouting "Evil DM"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone in a thread has been given an impression you didn't intend consider that perhaps that fault lies with you not them.
Doesn't sound like the players actually did anything wrong to me, they were hoodwinked into a terrible situation and didn't handle it perfectly in the moment. I wouldn't say this justifies trying to haunt their life with curses and traps.
If you really must s@@$ on your players explosive runes seem like the obvious choice. Attack their families and kill their kids if you feel like it.
EDIT: also isn't letting your players res the NPCS giving the same message of your actions don't have consequences as letting them not be haunted for their actions they were tricked into making?
If everyone in a thread has been given an impression you didn't intend consider that perhaps that fault lies with you not them.
Doesn't sound like the players actually did anything wrong to me, they were hoodwinked into a terrible situation and didn't handle it perfectly in the moment. I wouldn't say this justifies trying to haunt their life with curses and traps.
If you really must s&!* on your players explosive runes seem like the obvious choice. Attack their families and kill their kids if you feel like it.
EDIT: also isn't letting your players res the NPCS giving the same message of your actions don't have consequences as letting them not be haunted for their actions they were tricked into making?
The problem here is for the sake of time and not having everyone slog through a long description I cut out details I didn't think were necessary at the time,but this had the added unforeseen effect of giving a bad impression however I've since then given more detail several times throughout the thread and there's really no reason why the people in this thread can't read them to get a better idea of what went down and my intent before pointing fingers. my players and I got put into a b&%@~~+& situation I have no doubts of that however what little wiggle room they had was not used wisely even though me and the lawful good monk both suggested and attempted to nonlethal our way out however that didn't stop our lvl 5 CN rogue from putting a heavy crossbow bolt into a 14 year old lvl 4 bard with a CR of 3. this session wasn't fun for anyone honestly and it is not my style of GMing at all however it's the situation I'm now stuck with and I am going to give the PCs a chance to retcon the mistakes that they made in the heat of the moment (the revival will not be free or easy and they will get a large boon out of it) and the s++~ty situation they were thrown into by allowing them to undertake a quest to revive the NPCs should they care and if not a disgruntled mother will send them a trapped package which will serve really no other purpose than rattle them and hopefully get my players to think more carefully about their options in critical situations, it's a small tap on the wrist that won't impede them in any way but it carries weight with it which is what I want, to challenge their RP skills not to punish.
PCs can't start from lower than age 14 and this kid is already a level 3, considerably more powerful than the average commoner, not exactly your average 14 year old.
Honestly I can imagine a tone of characters that would be being not being roleplayed as true to concept if they started going easy mode in a competition fight because their opponent was 2-4 years shy of legal in a world that said character are not in and have never been to or heard of. Not every player wants to coddle their encounters and probably doesn't want the encounters to coddle them. This isn't not being careful in critical situations this is being true to character and playing the game the way that they want to. It doesn't need to be corrected unless its disruptive.
I really don't think the res idea sounds very interesting or like it drives home the actions have consequences thing particularly. Just send them some explosive cookies and hate mail and leave it at that. Thats what I'd do.
Right i get where you're coming from mate but none of my player's characters are evil or want to kill kids, one of my players got angry to the point of swearing at others because he got pidgeon holed into the situation and could do nothing about it. I'm not making them revive these npcs but if that's what they want to do I'm going to let them as I should, i'm using this disaster to drive the plot and challenge my players morality and if they agree they want to rez these characters and retcon the situation then that's what I'll let them do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@King_Namazu - i'm sorry the feedback hadn't been more helpful. knowing, now, that this is a horror-type campaign is actually quite helpful.
i think most people were trying to get as much info as possible, not only to visage how severe a consequence they thought appropriate, but also because they couldn't imagine the events (as you first wrote then) and the seemingly desired backlash to ever fit into any of their own games...
That said... why not just have them be haunted? if they aren't getting good night sleep due to nightmares every night, they will be fatigued and even exhausted. that is a huge debuff to martial players.
create an actual haunt as well - one they will need to destroy - but the method of destruction will only be discovered through some non-combat investigation (may even lead them to the crazy evil witch grandma along the way). maybe they need to track down whoever forced then to fight or whoever was mentally controlling them (assuming these are different people) and bring them to justice.
if they ignore the haunt they remain exhausted, and people in town keep getting injured and maybe even killed each day when the haunt resets.
the town can either view them as heroes for trying to save them from the haunt or as the worst of the worst - plaguebearers that brought the haunt to their town. they may even have to deal with an angry and vicious mob
I'm hoping to keep this to a 1 session maximum thing as I have other things planned that are more pressing (the town they're in is on the verge of civil war against the monster hunting guild they're in and some of it's members have been murdered, my players are at the forefront of the operation to shut down the rebellion) so I'm just going with a pissed off old lady who want's to see justice for her son's death, I'd give them explosive runes but i've already done that to them once (you'll never meet a group more paranoid to open a letter now lol) but if you have any more creative spells to use then I'd be grateful for the advice I'm looking for something like the load stone that is a pain in the ass but won't impede them to the point they are tearing out their hair because they can't do anything
don't have the witch cast a spell on them. instead do a little gm handwave and habe het curse their existing with conditional curses items.
turn one guy's armor into armor of arrow attraction.
turn the party bag of holding into a bag of devouring
turn another guy's gauntlets into gauntlets of fumbling...
the party will have no clue what's going on, you can even call for will saves to make them paranoid.. then have the witch spit at them and walk away.
unless they can roll a spellcraft check that is high enough to identify the curses items (really high dc) they will likely think they walked away unscathed... (but still have paranoid suspicions)
the bag only attacks after the second time they reach in to get something.
the gauntlets only trigger the curse upon entering melee.
the armor only triggers the curse when they are targeted by a projectile weapon.
while removing the curses - once they are discovered - would normally be pretty simple, they may have a hard time finding a clwric and a wizard in town willing to help them.... what with the impending civil war with the guild and the fact that they could earn themselves the ire of the witch.
The problem is the PC's aren't guilty of anything.Mate just read my comments in the thread I'm tired of explaining it to every person that comes into this thread pointing fingers at me and shouting "Evil DM"
Here's the thing. I read every single comment in this thread that you posted, and none of it addresses that the PCs are not guilty of anything.
If you kill a child in self-defense, it is still self-defense.
If you kill someone who has been cursed to attack you, then that is still self defense. It s tragic, but there is no moral issue.
Worse yet, the NPCs were all going to die anyway. You yourself explained that, whether the NPCs lived or died, they were transformed into puddings - effectively death.
but none of my player's characters are evil or want to kill kids,
No one said they were or did. In theory, PCs should never want to kill anyone. They do it because they live in a kill-or-be-killed world and must defend themselves to pursue their mission for the greater good. The threat being 12 years old means absolutely nothing to the issue of self defense. The 12 year old was a threat - therefore they had to fight to survive.
Now, if you want to give them a chance to res the slain individuals (in a way that doesn't turn them into slime) then great. That would certainly be a good action, and good characters would likely feel guilty about harming those who were forced into battle with them. That's fine. That's good roleplaying even.
Exploding boxes and/or curses from family members? That's the kind of pointless punitive measures that a lot of people in this thread are against.
Letting characters who feel bad about a tragic event take actions to undo or repair that event - that's character agency. Hitting them with random vengeance - that's taking agency away. You yourself complained about the other GM removing agency - don't repeat their mistake.
innocent was killed
It doesn't really matter if they are innocent. Look at the Crimson templar. LG ruthless assassins. They keep getting their divine powers unless they "stray from either strict lawfulness or pure goodness, or who kill a goodly creature, lose their patron's favor until they atone for their sins". So innocent doesn't factor in as long as those innocents didn't have a good alignment...
Here's the thing. I read every single comment in this thread that you posted, and none of it addresses that the PCs are not guilty of anything.
If you kill a child in self-defense, it is still self-defense.
I hate to break it to you mate but that isn't true. Most modern laws (this is a Voctorian Campaign) don't really allow you to kill kids even in self defense, a lot of the time the term "use of force as necessary" is used meaning using force in excess is still a crime. This is right out of the british criminal code matey "It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary." as well as "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
I hate to break it to you mate but that isn't true. Most modern laws (this is a Voctorian Campaign) don't really allow you to kill kids even in self defense, a lot of the time the term "use of force as necessary" is used meaning using force in excess is still a crime.Here's the thing. I read every single comment in this thread that you posted, and none of it addresses that the PCs are not guilty of anything.
If you kill a child in self-defense, it is still self-defense.
AH... I didn't say that. I think you arquoting someone else...
To what you're saying though, that wasn't the case though. The kids were using deadly force weren't they? So 'excessive' force is something more than deadly force in that case, right? Or to use a modern example, the kids have guns so what force in not excessive? Or are you expected to let them shoot you while you try to knock them out?
Lol sorry mate you had the same icon as someone else
But the thing with excessive force is it is kind of unfair in the fact that you are still expected to restrain a minor unless it's completely impossible in which case you're stil expected to incapacitate them. It's not so strick with adults but minors are treated differently
I'm not charging them though as those kids were trained killers and I've decided they'd have been treated as adults but they are still slightly at fault as I have provided non lethal weapons for such situations andthe player was asked how they wanted to shoot the kid and they replied "through the forehead" meaning they had a chance to spare them and didn't take it (even if they all exploded into puding in the end). My player did say they regretted it as they didn't think about it in the heat of the moment which is why I'm giving them a chouce to revive them at a personal price (nothing substancial like money or magic items or. ability) they'll just tak a fair bit of damage from a sacrifice)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really care about the legal ramifications of what the age of majority was in a faux analogue of Victorian England. The law can be whatever you want it to be as the DM of that world.
However I will say, players being forced to role play fighting children, or willingly killing children is pretty sick whichever way you square it. People can justify it by saying oh, back they would have been adults... but the point is you and your players live now and do understand how bad it is.
To be honest, if that happened in our game, knowing my players, the campaign would probably end. Everything I tried would be to walk back from that and undo the damage. Let's be honest this is a role play game and I'm surprised that's how some people get their kicks.
I don't really care about the legal ramifications of what the age of majority was in a faux analogue of Victorian England. The law can be whatever you want it to be as the DM of that world.
However I will say, players being forced to role play fighting children, or willingly killing children is pretty sick whichever way you square it. People can justify it by saying oh, back they would have been adults... but the point is you and your players live now and do understand how bad it is.
To be honest, if that happened in our game, knowing my players, the campaign would probably end. Everything I tried would be to walk back from that and undo the damage. Let's be honest this is a role play game and I'm surprised that's how some people get their kicks.
I get you mate my friends and I are fans of brutal horror stories and I did advise the guest GM before handing my notes on the NPCs to him that the 12 and 14 year old were not fighters. However they wanted to step up the horror aspect and although this isn't something I would ever have done in my game it's now the hand I've been given to play and I don't want to retcon it in a way that just feels like me hitting a rewind button or flipping a monopoly gameboard as I feel it would be a failure as a writer