Two sessions into The Stolen lands and already I feel that the party has gotten off on the wrong foot. After the battle at the fort the party's Druid went around stabilizing the wounded bandits and Happs. I thought 'Good, I can have one of the bandit's realize the error of his ways and help the party by leading them to the Thorn river camp'. But no go, After offering to show them the way the party's Inquisitor of Gorum and the Cleric of Abadar teamed up and, citing the charter, killed all of them.
I tried to emphasize the 'unrepentant banditry' part of the charter but their response was 'we just won't read that part to them'.
Later the same scene played out at the bandit camp where they executed everyone, even those who surrendered.
The Inquisitor is playing this as AP as a cross between Tombstone and Judge Dredd and unfortunately I can't figure out how to stop it. Fortunately their encounters with bandits will be limited to random encounters from now until they deal with the Stag lord.
This is not an invalid way to play. It is a very decidedly Neutral way to play it, and likely closer to Chaos than Law (Following only the parts of law they like, and discarding the rest), but... it's not inherently wrong.
Why not just let them?
If that's the way they wonna play ball, let them.. The stolen lands is not a happy place, it's cold and grim.
And let's face it, it's not like those thugs wouldn't have done the same to them.. And then some :D
This is not an invalid way to play. It is a very decidedly Neutral way to play it, and likely closer to Chaos than Law (Following only the parts of law they like, and discarding the rest), but... it's not inherently wrong.
This.
Although, I will say that a cleric of Abadar should be slightly worried about angering his god. The Master of the First Vault might be critical of one of his followers who routinely metes out unfair judgment.
They will see the error of their ways when they start book two and have multiple vacancies to deal with.
My group made it six months before they had an unrest of nine.
That's when they started second guessing a LOT of their previous actions and took on a more diplomatic style of play.
As for the cleric, stop some hints as to how those actions might bring him out of favor with his god
You could also consider introducing some negative consequences of their policy, such as:
1) A traveling priest can bring word of a specific religious item - a drum, a special set of bells, a minor holy relic, or the like - that was taken by bandits. This item is needed for a specific religious festival that will be happening in a few weeks. If it can't be found by then, it becomes completely worthless. (If the PCs had interrogated the bandits to learn where such items would be taken, they'd have been able to go after it - as things stand, they won't find it until months from now, when it is worth literally nothing.) NOTE: If you don't like the religious-festival idea, you can go with something perishable, perhaps a large shipment of fine quality wine or alcoholic spirits...
2) A pretty girl seeks out the PCs at Oleg's, looking for their help. Her brother is missing. They're from a wealthy family, and when their father died last year, their uncle claimed the family business for himself and kicked the girl and her brother out, penniless. She went to stay with a female friend, but her brother hinted at turning to banditry. Now uncle has been thrown in prison, and the family business turned over to the girl and her remaining brothers. Unfortunately for the PCs, the brother she's looking for is one of the bandits they already killed, and if she learns this, the PCs will gain the enmity of herself and her other brother(s) back home. (For a slightly more nuanced resolution, she had two brothers turn to banditry - one they've already killed, and one they can find in the Stag Lord's fort.)
3) A traveling bard learns of the PCs' unforgiving ways and creates a song satirizing the PCs as merciless (and not too bright, and unable to solve a problem except by killing it). Merchants bringing goods to restock Oleg's supplies can relate the song to Oleg or Svetlana (who can then express concern to the PCs), and say that they shouldn't be harboring murderers - meaning the PCs.
4) The PCs' patrons in Restov can hear the satirical song (see #3 above) and can send an emissary asking an accounting of their activities. This emissary can make a point of documenting how well they're meeting the terms of their charter. ("Hmm, explored forty percent of the area so far, that's good; hmmm, no useful information from interrogating prisoners, tut tut...") The emissary can hint that the PCs' performance may affect what future opportunities they are granted.
Yes, my suggestions basically amount to telling them they could've gotten something cool if they'd handled things differently. Some of them are harsher than others - some players have harder heads than others, and I don't know how big a stick he needs to get through to them. (Most of my players would get the hint from any one of these - but one or two of my players would probably still not be able to keep the hint in mind even after all of them.)
More to the point, though, these are suggestions that can be implemented now, in this very chapter. Penalizing diplomacy rolls can't happen until the PCs have their own kingdom and are interacting with other nations. Waiting until book 3 (or later) to address behavior that is making the adventure less fun (or eliminating cool possible storylines) during book 1 seems - impractical. Really, what does it accomplish at that late date?
Okay, mea culpa here - I really should've started with "Best thing to do is sit down with your players and explain they're missing cool story options because of this behavior." So, consider that suggestion made. With bold type, and I wish I could put a big flashing star next to it. But one way or another, if it's bothering the DM now, it needs to be addressed now.
|
Honestly a lot of this sounds like just giving them crap because they didn't play the way you wanted them to. Especially in regards to the traders I doubt they'd see people killing the bandits as murderers. There's better ways to do that than going "If you hadn't done that you could have had all this cool stuff"
A better way I think would be to have this reputation affect future events. Diplomatic relations could be terse and very tight on actual negotiations because thy know the pcs tend to be brutal in their dealings and if they are actually trying to work it out it would be more difficult to overcome that stigma (a la increased DCs) If you want it to have repercussions make it work organically, not arbitrarily.
The players should realize that they are the leaders of their country and someone is ALWAYS going to criticize them for their actions. No leader can appease 100% of the people. After almost every action my players take as leaders, the Councilor hears a few criticisms about it from some random merchant or craftsman. But I do agree...I wouldn't tell the players that if they had or hadn't done 'this' instead they could've gotten cooler stuff. Cause then it really does make the players feel like they can't do anything right.
|
While Abadar might frown on only interpreting part of thier writ he takes an even more dim view on banditry. It directly opposes his aspect of trade. Check out his paladin code in Faiths of Ballance as a reference. I wouldn't do anything more severe than a slap on the wrist (probably via a dream visit).
It's their story..
Perhaps tell them OOC that they might be able to get more out of it if they are less vindictive.. And if not, the travelling bard had got great stories to tell (and probably some nice bodyguards, he ain't shtoopiet :P)
XP are not only earned by dropping opponents past -CON, but as has been pointed out it's certainly a rough place in the River Kingdoms.
Sure, KM has room for a lot of social interaction, but even though I GM for a group where the lowest CHA is 18 (sic!), they still do judgement by blade 90% of the time.
If they are having fun - let them.
Now, if you don't have fun, try to sway them in a different direction, either in game (via suggestions Cintra made or something else, maybe you find something within the River Freedoms) or OOG.
Ruyan.
If you aren't having fun running this game for this group let them know how you feel. If you guys cant find a middle ground then bail find a group who is more in line with you mind set in terms of how they play.
I know that I'd have an issue with that type of play as I dont want to run a game filled with sociopathic characters aka Murder Hobos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you haven't brought him in yet, Grigory will EAT THIS UP. Or as a RL friend of mine in community politics would say "This s--t writes itself..."
Don't you hate it when the ammo your enemy uses is the ammo YOU gave him?
The other possible consequence your pc's should probably keep in mind is the simple 'what goes around comes around.' There WILL be times when they get themselves in over their heads & the other guy comes out on top. If they have a reputation for 'NO MERCY' guess what?...
If you haven't brought him in yet, Grigory will EAT THIS UP. Or as a RL friend of mine in community politics would say "This s--t writes itself..."
Don't you hate it when the ammo your enemy uses is the ammo YOU gave him?
The other possible consequence your pc's should probably keep in mind is the simple 'what goes around comes around.' There WILL be times when they get themselves in over their heads & the other guy comes out on top. If they have a reputation for 'NO MERCY' guess what?...
Both hit what I was going to say exactly. For one, a party with a reputation for brutality even to surrendered foes is going to have plenty that opponents can point out later when they bring up concerns.
Secondly, if the party pulls no punches have the enemy pull no punches. Nobody who has heard of the PCs treatment of prisoners surrenders to them, they fight to the bitter end trying to take at least one of their relentless attackers down with them, and anybody who has an advantage over the PCs press them until they are all dead, rather than capturing them.
This way you let the PCs do what they find fun while also having their enemies react to those actions the way they should react.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of liberal landscape are you running? Who exactly uses kid gloves against bandits? They're bandits, and executing them (by sword or rope) is a part of their charter, and a part of the natural law of things.
The law deals with banditry harshly. Period. It's not real complicated, and assuming that powers that be elsewhere will frown on that is . . . absurd. They'll more likely applaud the eradication of bandits than they will tsk tsk.
This is a frontier land; a level of frontier justice is to be presumed. Heck, every bandit is going to be repentant when they're taken prisoner. I wouldn't even take that part of the charter seriously. Unless, of course, a bandit showed up out of the blue and turned himself in because he literally wanted to repent. Or, in the case of a potential bandit in part one, changes sides as the combat begins.
There are two issues here:
1. Don't try to force players into making their characters act with a modern day morality. Frankly, it's more realistic that folks everywhere will have more respect for their harsh treatment of bandits than less respect. This is the Stolen Lands, not San Francisco.
2. If your only worry is getting more information into the hands of the PC's then figure out another way to do it -- or let the PC's go forward without the knowledge. No big deal.
|
Only you can judge why your characters are so ruthless. If you think they are doing it just to be 'evil with an excuse', make 'em regret it. If they are doing it because they feel it's legitimate, let them have their fun. I had one guy beg the paladin for his life but the paladin read the scroll to them. later he felt guilty as hell. Of course, their heavy handedness can cause problems. When we ran the lumberjack scene, our half orc female fighter leaped off her horse, ran over slapped the lead lumberjack for insolence. A horrible melee ensued where the party 'did the whole village' and cut down every lumberjack with an axe in his hand. This so revolted Tigg, the nixie and several others, the group has had a hard time getting anyone to help cut lumber/build structures...
This same group killed an evil noble's son who was trying to stop peasants from leaving his plantation for 'stag-holm'. They had no idea who he was, but they found out when poison, supply-line routes and all manner of other things went wrong. They have since tread lightly with their 'frontier justice' stance....
|
Secondly, if the party pulls no punches have the enemy pull no punches. Nobody who has heard of the PCs treatment of prisoners surrenders to them, they fight to the bitter end trying to take at least one of their relentless attackers down with them, and anybody who has an advantage over the PCs press them until they are all dead, rather than capturing them.
Absolutely. No one should ever surrender to the PCs because they know they will be killed. No one should ever give information to the PCs because they know they will be killed. Bad guys should attack fallen PCs to ensure that they don't get up. The bad guys will use coup de grace whenever they have the opportunity.
Don't be vindictive, but your players need to learn that actions have consequences.
Secondly, if the party pulls no punches have the enemy pull no punches. Nobody who has heard of the PCs treatment of prisoners surrenders to them, they fight to the bitter end trying to take at least one of their relentless attackers down with them, and anybody who has an advantage over the PCs press them until they are all dead, rather than capturing them.Absolutely. No one should ever surrender to the PCs because they know they will be killed. No one should ever give information to the PCs because they know they will be killed. Bad guys should attack fallen PCs to ensure that they don't get up. The bad guys will use coup de grace whenever they have the opportunity.
Don't be vindictive, but your players need to learn that actions have consequences.
Seconded!
If they are ruthless, their enemies will know... And be equally ruthless..(also: ruthless is not the same as bloodthirsty to me.. They know what they want is all)
I had this conflict arise in my game too, the Inquisitor and the hot-headed Dragon Sorcerer wanted to kill them all. But they made some deals with Kressle, information for her life - the two of them still wanted to off them or do something gruesome like cut off a hand.
I did tell them that if word got out they didn't keep their word, it could lead to potential troubles getting other denizens of the Stolen Lands to trust them in the future. Some of the other players agreed, and they decided against it.
Kressle is now in their employ and serves as the kingdoms Royal Executioner.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the party is in agreement, then they are flagging the style of game they want to play. They aren't looking for soulful redemption arcs. They are here to conquer and claim.
You might feel they are missing out, but if they're having fun then more power to them. It just means you'll have a bit of extra work to introduce friendly NPCs, particularly ones that work with the PC's way of thinking.
My group is about evenly split between diplomats, and executioners but the person who is now Duke makes the final decisions re: the lives and deaths of bandits and monsters.
Ultimately, if you don't like the way the PCs are playing, then you should have a conversation with them. Tell them you feel they are missing out on story options and quest lines because they are slaughtering their way through the AP. That while they are free to play as they wish, it impacts your fun as potential NPCs that you get to run are simply slaughtered wholesale. It's your game too, and as long as you promise to give them some unrepentant bandits and monsters along with the other kind they might be willing to compromise a little.
Never resort to IN-GAME methods to change player behaviour, it only leads to hurt feelings and frustration.