Thanks for making my point. You just said, you'd never sign a contract without reading it, because it would be stupid. But you'd run off an risk your life for a gold reward without asking about what the rules are for collecting it? I don't think so. :)You'd hire some out of towners without telling them what the rules are? remember the locals are lawful, not the party.
Moving the goal posts again?
In one post, the PCs heard about it, went after it, never talked to the guys in charge. Now they got hired? Which is it?
As to lawful, remember, lawful just means 'follow our laws', not 'friendly', 'nice', or 'helpful'. A devil is lawful, if you take him at face value, then you're the one who's going to be counting not just your soul, but your kids souls, your wife's, your parents, several siblings...
Yes, I could absolutely see someone hiring some out of towners to go do scut work and not giving them information they didn't ask about, and being completely lawful about it.
To top it off, the PC's are locals. One would reasonably expect them to already know the basic laws and not even need a knowledge check.I've actually said, several times, although people ignore it, that if someone was local, they should have just been told about this when they took the items off the guy in the first place, out of character.
Over 300 posts, I don't even read 'em all, but here I spy this little gem of a comment. I couldn't agree more.
|
GM - "You're aware (because you grew up in this town under these laws) that a fugitive's gear is his property until he is proven guilty, at which point it is appropriated by the state to recompense the victims of his crimes. You know that looting him is considered stealing."
PC - "Oh. I guess my paladin won't do that after all."
~~~~
As opposed to the version where it's sprung on them and the players start reacting like they're being prosecuted.
GM - "You're aware (because you grew up in this town under these laws) that a fugitive's gear is his property until he is proven guilty, at which point it is appropriated by the state to recompense the victims of his crimes. You know that looting him is considered stealing."
PC - "Oh. I guess my paladin won't do that after all."
~~~~
As opposed to the version where it's sprung on them and the players start reacting like they're being prosecuted.
Mergy - see that last part is where the problem is. OP flat doesn't want to back off that approach.
Please note I had an IF on that quoted statement (although I'm glad you liked it!). IF one of the PCs is from that region, or even an immediate neighbor, then he should just be told. But if they are all from a different area, they will have to find out how things work in character.
I am currently running a game that started with 5 people washing up on a shoreline, shipwrecked on a continent they all thought had been overrun by evil over a thousand years ago. They had literally 0 knowledge of what had happened on the continent in the last 1400 years.
They had to find out EVERYTHING in character. They had to ask questions about even the most basic things, and got quite a few surprises.
Imagine you go to a foreign country, you're waiting for a bus. You are chewing some gum you brought with you in your suitcase. You stick the gum under the bench.
A police officer sees you, arrests you, and you are sentenced to a public caning of 5 lashes.
Welcome to Singapore, where it is illegal to import chewing gum, and illegal to put chewing gum on public property. This is a real law by the way. Singapore really does have a law against importing chewing gum.
Update: Had my session tonight, but the PCs didn't actually get back into town because they were finishing up other jobs. Next session, the 27th, they're planning on heading back to town and at that point will be informed that they need to give the fugitive's gear back. Things will be roleplayed from there.
I thought that's why we kept replying to this thread. We're trying to stop a 10-car pileup here.
GM! Your break lines have been cut! Repeat, do not spring random paradigm shifts on your players! You're going to hit that school bus!
AGGGGGGGGGGDHSFHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHVOSDIUFS----
I still don't think it's going to be as bad as you fear. As I said before, the PCs will be asked IC by the captain of the town watch to return the fugitive's gear. If they do no harm no foul. If they roleplay well enough they may also be able to keep the gear. Otherwise they'll have to deal with the ramifications of their actions, which will be determined by how that roleplay the situation.
|
First off I haven't read every post just the first couple of pages so if I repeat anything sorry
This is a slippery slope you tread.
1. When the characters get more reward from simply killing him and taking his gear as opposed to handing him in and collecting a meager reward. They are quickly going to learn and go for the kill every time.
2. They are not playing lawful characters. If you wish them to obey every law than maybe you shouldn't allow non lawful alignments in your game. In which case you are going to quickly find yourself with no players or at thievery least bored unhappy players.
3. You as a gm really need to be able to put aside what you know and learn to have your npcs act upon what they "know" and as others have said unless they know for certain what went down then why would they take the word of a known criminal suspect against the people that the courts hired to bring that suspect to justice.
In short. Yes, I think you are being unrealistic in your expectations. And as a player I would feel very wronged should you take the path you are hinting at.
1. When the characters get more reward from simply killing him and taking his gear as opposed to handing him in and collecting a meager reward. They are quickly going to learn and go for the kill every time.
Nothing is stopping them from doing so. Any fallout from doing so will be handled IC.
2. They are not playing lawful characters. If you wish them to obey every law than maybe you shouldn't allow non lawful alignments in your game. In which case you are going to quickly find yourself with no players or at thievery least bored unhappy players.
And here is where you and seemingly most of the posters in this thread are jumping to the wrong conclusion. I as the GM don't care if they keep the gear or not. It's not like they're going to be overpowered or break the campaign or anything. But as I've said several times before, breaking character for metagamey reasons hurts the immersion of the game. The error I made is small enough to be corrected in game, so that's how it will be addressed.
3. You as a gm really need to be able to put aside what you know and learn to have your npcs act upon what they "know" and as others have said unless they know for certain what went down then why would they take the word of a known criminal suspect against the people that the courts hired to bring that suspect to justice.
Why do you think the NPCs won't be acting on what they know in game? Give me a little credit, thank you. The authorities are going to question the PCs on the matter. If it comes down to the PCs' word against the criminal's word, then the PCs are going to get their way because at this point they're building a good reputation with the local baron (whom the authorities serve under). Again, it all comes down to roleplaying. The better job they do of roleplaying the situation the better the outcome for them will be.
In short. Yes, I think you are being unrealistic in your expectations. And as a player I would feel very wronged should you take the path you are hinting at.
And as a GM I would more or less tell you to get over it. I'm not playing a beginner game where everyone gets their hands held and every deviation from the usual expected list of cliches gets a pre-game OOC warning because god forbid you have to do any thinking in the game.
This little scenario is just the pre-game warmup. Once the PCs get up in levels and start building a real reputation and interacting with the power players of the campaign, they're going to learn very quickly that mistakes during a social encounter can be just as deadly as mistakes made in combat. (Or not. If the PCs indicate they're really not interested in playing the intrigue game then I won't foist it upon them. I'll challenge them in a different fashion.)
I see very little wrong with confronting PCs for their behaviour, they were not hired to kill or rob the man that was their own initiative, you talked about it with your players so all is good it might in the longer run affect alignment/reputation/job offers and the way they are perceived by other NPCs.
You should have anticipated the players keeping the items though and while not all courses of action always should lead to the same or very similar end result (a quick boost in wealth is often very tempting) in the long run it should even out.
- do the RIGHT thing and get a better reward/potential ally future references and the like. Stroke their ego a bit and show them some appreciation, maybe they get use of free logging/influential connections and honourary ranks in the militia or free charter.
- do the WRONG thing and have their reputation, glorious job offers and NPC reactions suffer and they get to be the subject of a tax inspection by some officer that doesn't like them.
I see very little wrong with confronting PCs for their behaviour, they were not hired to kill or rob the man that was their own initiative, you talked about it with your players so all is good it might in the longer run affect alignment/reputation/job offers and the way they are perceived by other NPCs.
Umm, no, he didn't. In fact he refuses to talk about it with his players.
Umm, no, he didn't. In fact he refuses to talk about it with his players.I see very little wrong with confronting PCs for their behaviour, they were not hired to kill or rob the man that was their own initiative, you talked about it with your players so all is good it might in the longer run affect alignment/reputation/job offers and the way they are perceived by other NPCs.
Must have misunderstood then, I recall him saying they more or less agreed it was stealing. I wouldn't be willing to take it much further OOC than that either, as far as I understand the OP just wants the player's actions to have consequences (though not necesarily screw them over), a little backlash sometimes does a good job to make them interact more. If you challenge players in ways other than competing with your npc/monster stats they will be less inclined to focus on looting and powerbuilding, in my experience.
Ok! Had my session and its resolution. It ended up being pretty anti-climatic. When the PCs went back to town they were asked about the halberd and handed it over to the authorities without argument. They were also asked about the cloak but the PCs claimed the fugitive was lying and that it wasn't his cloak. The party face rolled higher on his bluff check than the captain of the guard rolled on his sense motive, so the PCs were able to keep the cloak without hassle. The fugitive insisted the PCs were lying but was told that between his word and theirs considering their respective reputations that the PCs were much more believeable. The captain also told the fugitive that even if he was telling the truth than let it be a lesson to him to not run when he's wanted for questioning. The matter is officially settled from the authorities' standpoint although the PCs now have an enemy who wants vengeance. He may just pop up in the future once he gets his freedom back...
Anyway I know I disregarded a lot of the advice I was given in this thread but I appreciate it nonetheless. It enlightened me that if I were to find myself GMing for a group I did not know as well as I do my existing group that the players may not take it in stride like mine did. Thanks!
The matter is officially settled from the authorities' standpoint although the PCs now have an enemy who wants vengeance. He may just pop up in the future once he gets his freedom back...
Why would he want vengeance on the party?
|
|
Why would he want vengeance on the party?The matter is officially settled from the authorities' standpoint although the PCs now have an enemy who wants vengeance. He may just pop up in the future once he gets his freedom back...
Vengeance seems pretty par for the course. The party busted him, threw him in jail AND took his stuff? That's a bruised ego for sure.
Vengeance seems pretty par for the course. The party busted him, threw him in jail AND took his stuff? That's a bruised ego for sure.
Yeah he's not happy about it for sure. I just have to let this one simmer for awhile and hope the PCs eventually forget about him...
Vengeance seems pretty par for the course. The party busted him, threw him in jail AND took his stuff? That's a bruised ego for sure.Why would he want vengeance on the party?The matter is officially settled from the authorities' standpoint although the PCs now have an enemy who wants vengeance. He may just pop up in the future once he gets his freedom back...
But the constables would have taken his stuff anyway.
But the constables would have taken his stuff anyway.
The PCs took his +1 halberd, his cloak of resistance, and the money he got for fencing the stolen sword, but it was only officially acknowledged that they took his halberd. The halberd will be sold to so the criminal can make restitution to his victim and pay his fine, except it won't be enough so he's going to get sent to work in a nearby mine until he can pay the rest of his debts. Had the PCs not kept his money and cloak the money and sale of one of his magic items would have paid for his fine and restitution and he would've been able to keep the rest of his stuff. But since the PCs themselves lied to the authorities the criminal thinks they're no better than he his and are directly responsible for his suffering, so he's going to want to get revenge once he gets free.
|
But the constables would have taken his stuff anyway.The PCs took his +1 halberd, his cloak of resistance, and the money he got for fencing the stolen sword, but it was only officially acknowledged that they took his halberd. The halberd will be sold to so the criminal can make restitution to his victim and pay his fine, except it won't be enough so he's going to get sent to work in a nearby mine until he can pay the rest of his debts. Had the PCs not kept his money and cloak the money and sale of one of his magic items would have paid for his fine and restitution and he would've been able to keep the rest of his stuff. But since the PCs themselves lied to the authorities the criminal thinks they're no better than he his and are directly responsible for his suffering, so he's going to want to get revenge once he gets free.
(This is written in a slightly sarcastic tone):
Given that the party is playing a GAME, they let an evil npc LIVE?!?!?!They SOOOooo deserve to have the NPC get them back for revenge.
The party should have taken his items, BUT! find some way to trick him into believing they are doing their best to help him.
That way the NPC is left thinking that the party is his savors, while the truth is that they just emotionally blackmailed him AND rob him of his belongings.
------
That said, in all seriousness, I think the party have just gave you the DM a great way to come up with an recurring enemy. A story plot that you can save for use later. :)
That said, in all seriousness, I think the party have just gave you the DM a great way to come up with an recurring enemy. A story plot that you can save for use later. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt4329_W_s0
But the constables would have taken his stuff anyway.The PCs took his +1 halberd, his cloak of resistance, and the money he got for fencing the stolen sword, but it was only officially acknowledged that they took his halberd. The halberd will be sold to so the criminal can make restitution to his victim and pay his fine, except it won't be enough so he's going to get sent to work in a nearby mine until he can pay the rest of his debts. Had the PCs not kept his money and cloak the money and sale of one of his magic items would have paid for his fine and restitution and he would've been able to keep the rest of his stuff. But since the PCs themselves lied to the authorities the criminal thinks they're no better than he his and are directly responsible for his suffering, so he's going to want to get revenge once he gets free.
This doesn't match any system of medieval law I know of. In every one I know of the Watch would have taken everything down to his smallclothes. True, in many of them a fine and restitution would make things all better (few folks were actually put into prison), but he'd have to get the cash from other sources. Constables have to make a living too. Remember the legionaires dicing for Jesus's cloak, etc?
All depends on your societies AL.