You walk out Cal. I'd play their game.
I meant to say "tempted to walk out". I edited my post to state that... but yeah, I'd have to push back. Not sure how slowly I'd let it break loose, though.. lol
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, Drew, I stumbled on the thread a few hours ago. I hope you don't mind me posting a bit of player perspective to maybe turn the lynch mob towards some discussion that may be a bit less campaign ending.
First impressions of the town when we started the adventure was a place that generally appreciated the order that the Hellknight government offered but the majority of the citizenship was being driven to poverty through excessive taxes. We pretty much aligned ourselves with a local resistance group immediately so our interactions with the Hellknights was antagonistic from the beginning.
Due to the Hellknight influence the economy was rather out of whack to what we were used to on a metagaming level. Legitimately gained loot typically sold to merchants for about a quarter of listed value while needed items could be purchased at mark ups that sometimes exceeded 2000% (granted the 300 gp for 3 masterwork cold iron shurikens could have been an unintentional error). Pretty much for our first four levels it was loot the Spire to the ground and opportunistic stealing if we wanted any sort of gear that was beyond our ability to craft.
More generally I think we might not communicating with you as effectively as were earlier in the campaign and the initial struggle we had early on has led to a bit of a downward spiral. As early as level two I think everyone in the party had a sense that we were occasionally skirting some fairly dangerous lines with the Hellknights. I think part of the escalating violence can be attributed to the perception that lying is generally our most effective diplomatic tool and once that runs out we're in trouble.
I think the Kyton actually serves as a fairly good example of the mentality that we've fallen into. Yes it was being friendly and cooperative but due to communications barriers we didn't really know what its intentions were. I went along with slaying it but not just because the idea was tossed out there, it was because in the moment I felt that the party would be safer without the lawful evil outsider that was apparently allied to the Hellknights watching over our shoulder.
Anyway, I'm sorry because I didn't realize that we had started to antagonize you that much. I do hope that we can sort out a way so the campaign can be less stressful and more fun for you because I really have enjoyed the effort you've put into presenting everything.
I think I'll stay away from this thread at this point because if you do decide to start planning our demise (which could be an epic way to end the campaign) I'd like to be surprised. I will put out there though that about half a dozen of these dropped before an encounter followed by this spell around the second round of combat would likely shut down the bulk of the party's offenses for a short time.
ETA: Feel free to PM or email if you'd like to discuss any specific concerns outside the forum.
Thanks for giving us some of the other side!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're group is evil, they clearly want to be evil
let em be evil
as some folks have already mentioned that means they get hunted but it also means a whole different class of Quest Giver.
It means evil masterminds who negotiated only through projected images and illusions, Infernalists who back up their agreements with blood contracts and Devil Enforcers, Mafia bosses who do business at arms length with a large number of Crossbows pointed at people. Evil Overlords who rule through unquestioned strength and fear.
it also means double crosses, blackmail, frame ups, magically enforced agreements, bribery and under the table deals made to one member of the group and not the rest.
They want to be Evil
show em what evil really means and enjoy yourself doing it
It sounds like the Gunslinger is the problem and the rest are sheep. Bring in the Paladin squad as said before. These guys gotta sleep right? Take down the Slinger and see what happens with the rest. If they are really sheep, you can have you game back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many players forget that the GM needs to have fun too
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the big problem here is the Evil behavior. Evil is fine as a play style (if acknowledged as such, and realistic in-world consequences ensue). Again, I'd say the main problem is one of communication:
The PCs are not giving the GM (who either dislikes or is poor at improvising) sufficient time to plan encounters and adventures, instead going and doing their own thing with no warning. That's the real issue here. And easily solved by the GM putting their foot down and demanding that, whatever the PCs intend to do, they plan it out at the end of the previous session. That way, there's planning time.
I've run sandbox games (which this clearly is to some degree) and doing this was invaluable to me in doing so.
Our group doesn't have any magic to come back to life. We use hero points to recreate the close calls and scrape by the edge of your teeth near escapes as far as death is concerned.
Our group knows an evil character loses use of hero points until their alignment resets. They also know that the rest of the group won't protect them if they act like evil kill-hobos and they won't last long alone against the law.
Returning with a PC of a lower level and with shoddier point buys/equipment is another good reason not to play evil.
As far as your group, OP, I agree with many of the other posters. Talk about it out of game. If that doesn't work let the Hellknights kill them off in the most unheroic fashion.
I'm sure when they fail to pass obscene fort DC's against torture and your description is "Your character begins to cry as his fingers are cut off, begging through the tears for release. There is none. Before the sun has set, you realize death will have taken you" they'll regret playing jerks.
Normally I'm all for the PC's are always in control of their characters but that loss of control and dignity may show them that if you don't enjoy the game, they won't either.
I'm sure when they fail to pass obscene fort DC's against torture and your description is "Your character begins to cry as his fingers are cut off, begging through the tears for release. There is none. Before the sun has set, you realize death will have taken you" they'll regret playing jerks.A GM who tells his player- who may or may not be a jerk- what the character says and does is a hell of a jerk in my book.
Unless they all get Dominated by Hellknight allied wizards who then tell them to slowly kill each other. No conflict there since they obviously have 0 problems with murder and betrayal.
Then the GM is well within his rights to tell them how they slowly carve each other to death.
On the post that started this thread, it illustrates something I am fond of saying to people new to GMing- never get too attached with what you expect the PCs to do, they will likely do something else entirely.
One of my efforts as a player- when the scenario expected us to react to a ship that couldn't be sunk by investigating the local myths, I decided to build a giant sausage grinder and attach it to the front of a boat to see if that would do the trick.
On what to do, if players were behaving in such a murderous fashion I would have law enforcement show up. Not in overwhelming force as some here have suggested, but the PCs would certainly be on the run.
One of your players has posted here and he sounds quite sensible. Some of the interactions earlier in the campaign lead them to be greedy and mistrustful.
Another thing is a lot of PF players think killing evil things is what you do. And if you don't they will back stab you more sooner than later.
One of your players has posted here and he sounds quite sensible.
It's ironic because his character seems to be the biggest sociopath of the party
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to know why, of all the organizations they could have f+$&ed with, they picked the HELLKNIGHTS.
The Hellknights are not an organization you cross and expect to survive. These are the people whose initiation ritual involves beating a Devil to death with their bare damn hands in real combat.
They've got 20th level Paladins and s#*~ with nothing better to do than wait for the armies of Hell to assault our plane. They certainly have enough spare time to get together and stomp some little punks for stepping on their turf.
That is what I was thinking. The hellknight could personally not even want to kill you, but because you did ___ and ___ they have to kill you on principle(rules/laws/etc) alone.
Assuming the characters are not evil, have none of the Divine casters spells work any more. Everyone remembers that Paladins can fall, but no one remembers
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
If they are Good or Lawful, or likely even Neutral it sounds like they have violated that.
First - If your party isn't interested in playing the game you planned, it's going to be impossible to force them.
Second - Your party is clearly evil. People have said this earlier, but make the party change their alignment to Evil. This comes with whatever bonuses or penalties the alignment brings. Any Divine characters probably need to find a new god, that could be a quest right there.
Third - A Coup de Grace is only applicable when the person is helpless (Eg. unconscious, tied up, reduced to 0 Strength etc). Just walking behind someone does not grant you the ability to Coup de Grace. The enemy would be flat-footed, and you could let them make a called shot for extra damage, but an NPC who's talking to them wouldn't be an applicable target for a Coup de Grace.
Fourth - Whether or not you're actually going to try to change their play-style, this kind of behaviour would attract the attention of actual heroes. Your plan to have the party track down an evil cult (or whatever) and cut them down before they destroy the town? Well it looks like the party IS the evil cult, and another party has come to take them out. Maybe there's a local high level wizard who had been away and just came back to find out his son has been murdered. Maybe a high level paladin was passing through. There's plenty of options. This doesn't even have to be a punishment for the party, this could be their new quest, get powerful enough to take out the Paladin (and remember, they're all evil, so the Paladin can deal some serious damage to them). You could also just have a handy "High Level Sorcerer" template on hand, and the next time they try to murder someone, you swap out the NPC's stats for the sorcerer. The NPC didn't mind them murdering other people, but even the most unassuming townsfolk could be hiding their sorcerous abilities.
Fifth - If it's mostly one player (the gunslinger) doing this, maybe find a way to take them out of the equation for a session. Have an enemy sunder their weapons, or grapple them, or whatever takes out a gunslinger (I've never played with a gunslinger class, so someone else can probably help you more here). This doesn't have to last forever, but without that one character murdering everyone in the first round, maybe the party will pick up the plot?
Best tool I have in my toolbox for players like this:
Don't try to 'beat them'.
It's how they want to play the game, change the plot, work WITH them. It's okay to cater to the players, it can be FUN to GM a sandbox where all the PCs are basically untouchable.
Give them options outside of your planned campaign, I always have a location with a combat arena where they can go, wager on themselves and fight pretty much whatever they want.
Roll with the punches.
Start statting out nasty monsters that pose as normal monsters i.e. dragons with levels of urban druid that look like goblins...
Rakshasas...
Heck, at one point I introduced a sub-race of humans called Eternals that simply _existed_ no matter what the players did. They weren't powerful, but made great messengers/seers... they would show up to offer the players a quest... the players would sometimes nuke them... the Eternal would get back up, dust themselves off and say something like "very well, I will take that as a no, I guess another group may be interested in obtaining the Artifact of Godly Powers".
If you see the game as a competition between you and the players, both sides have already lost.
First of all I'd like to thank everyone for their examples on how to deal with PCs going outside of the "boundaries" of designed questing. I have some ammo for the next time I feel like putting them in a quest line when they're feeling rambunctious!
The idea of asking them their plans for the next session is huge, never thought to do that before and will definitely help with preparation as opposed to my usual on-the-spot drops. I have used old characters from other campaigns, no low level party wants to be on the bad side of the high level characters you've developed in the past.
In an open campaign with the premise being solely to spread chaos the PCs were forced into service by NPCs they could not compete with. When they tried to overthrow their shackles too early in the campaign they were tortured with the severity related to the level of opposition. One was paralyzed from the waist down, another partially blinded, another lost a hand, spellcaster a tongue, etc. They then had to continue the campaign with these disabilities and roleplaying through and questing to make up for their defects was quite fun! "You got new legs Lieutenant Dan!"
First of all I'd like to thank everyone for their examples on how to deal with PCs going outside of the "boundaries" of designed questing. I have some ammo for the next time I feel like putting them in a quest line when they're feeling rambunctious!
The idea of asking them their plans for the next session is huge, never thought to do that before and will definitely help with preparation as opposed to my usual on-the-spot drops. I have used old characters from other campaigns, no low level party wants to be on the bad side of the high level characters you've developed in the past.
In an open campaign with the premise being solely to spread chaos the PCs were forced into service by NPCs they could not compete with. When they tried to overthrow their shackles too early in the campaign they were tortured with the severity related to the level of opposition. One was paralyzed from the waist down, another partially blinded, another lost a hand, spellcaster a tongue, etc. They then had to continue the campaign with these disabilities and roleplaying through and questing to make up for their defects was quite fun! "You got new legs Lieutenant Dan!"
Removing a characters freedom/crippling them doesn't go over well in my group, I would be VERY angry if that happened to me... especially if I couldn't resolve it fairly quickly... taking away a spellcasters tongue? I would immediately ask the GM to change characters. That's like taking away an archers eyes.
But hey, if your group liked it, groovy. I have played campaigns where we all started as slaves, but it was more like being treasured gladiators, not oppressed prisoners...
Players are just as human as humans. If they are going to "take over the town" then they are going to do it the easiest way, Killing the head guy. Epic quests are epic when they are needed, but when there's a simple solution players will often choose that instead of the epic questing you've planned.
I'm sure when they fail to pass obscene fort DC's against torture and your description is "Your character begins to cry as his fingers are cut off, begging through the tears for release. There is none. Before the sun has set, you realize death will have taken you" they'll regret playing jerks.A GM who tells his player- who may or may not be a jerk- what the character says and does is a hell of a jerk in my book.
Indeed. But if it's a circle jerk is what the group wants... Note that is a bit aggressive and a big middle finger to the players derailing. I noted I don't really agree with player loss of control but if I pulling a "rocks fall players die" I'd make it worse via ridicule.
As it stands, if I was the GM, and it was the whole group going off the rails, I'd tell them what type of game I wanted to run. They can get on board or somebody else can put the effort into GMing.
If it was just a person or two, our gm already has measures in place to ensure party members don't go full villain and derail the campaign.
We have a half orc who was considering killing the trash collector in Sandpoint. He considered doing it because he felt the trash collector (who is also a half orc) was making half orcs look weak. GM looked at him and noted he was OOC for a moment. He reminded the player that murder would see his character hunted by the Sheriff and others, and that as soon as he did enough bad stuff to ping as evil he'd lose access to hero points. Then once dead he'd get a ten point buy and crap equipment if the GM let him play in the game anymore at all.
Although I agree you need to deal with this by whatever means you choose. I would think twice about penalizing a future character build. If you decide to kill them and continue to play with the same group the play should stay fair
Kill all the player characters in your gaming group as quick as possible, that's the only way to be sure.
Or alternatively make the dead NPCs family members seek revenge. "Remember Old man Willy, that peaceful barkeep you butchered for no reason, his son Dilly the Conqueror (a powerful Bloodrager) has come home for Christmas."
I've tried talking to them out of game. The gunslinger in particular I've asked to please stop killing the friendly npc's. They're all around level 9 now. And I've told them all out of game that I was going to introduce a friendly npc that I really didn't want them to kill. I told them repeatedly, out of game. For a few weeks in a row.
I'd resigned myself to them not doing any quests for the townsfolk. But I knew the wanted to take over the town & I had a whole quest planned for them to do it in the most epic way possible. Complete with maps that I spent WAY too much time on.
But of course, this happened:
*Npc begins to give vital quest"
Gunslinger: "While it's talking, I shoot it in the back of the head."
Me: "Are you sure? It doesn't seem hostile in any way."
Gunslinger: "Of course I shoot it!" *laugh*
Me: "Does anyone want to stop the gunslinger from killing the friendly quest giving npc that means you no harm?"
Everyone: "Nope"Then the very next game they shoot the head commander.
I really want to just tell the gunslinger that he's now GM and stop playing, but there are people in the group that I do like playing with (but they tend to just go along with the gunslinger).
Thanks everyone for the advice. I mostly just wanted to blow off steam here and rant a bit.
The way I see it, you really only have three options open to you.
Firstly, you can choose to get rid of the gunslinger. Not just the character, but the player. You tell him that you do not want him in the group anymore, because you feel he is being deliberately disruptive to the game. There is -absolutely nothing- wrong in using your inexperience as a talking point here. By your own admission, you're a relatively new GM ("and a bit of a pushover" I believe you said earlier). Well, you need to stop being a pushover, because that particular player is creating merry mayhem with your campaign.
Look at it this way: You've spent weeks telling them, there's an NPC you'd rather like them not to kill, and he still does it. You've asked him nicely to let you get something underway, and he not only mocks you by not allowing it, but he then stops the campaign dead in its tracks.
Consequently, he's doing this not to further a story, but to be disruptive and to ruin your chance at having fun. That's called a powerstruggle. The player wants to overtly stake a claim to being in control of the game. You're the GM ... if you're not in control of the game, there IS no game. Ergo, get rid of him.
Secondly, if you really don't want to basically tell the player not to turn up anymore, you can have his character killed. Given the circumstances, his character should not be allowed a Ned Kelly-like last stand. In fact, I'd have him roll random saving throws fifty times a night, to avoid slipping on a dog turd and breaking his neck or some other similarly humiliating end to the character. Or if you do feel that this is too much, then simply have him wake up after a night's sleep in the inn, with fifty NPCs surrounding his room and blocking -every- escape route, even the really clever one he thought you had never thought of. Have several of those NPCs counter any magic he might have stored (gunslingers don't generally use magic but I don't trust this kind of player further than I can throw them ... so not very far at all). When he whines about how this isn't fair, you can tell him, plainly, that people tend to notice rampant murdering sprees and that he was considered a rabid dog, too dangerous to let live. If he wants to make a new character, limit his options -severely-, by telling him that he can play only certain alignments and certain classes or he'll be excluded from the game entirely.
Or thirdly, get up and leave the table.
It's that simple. To me, it sounds like the players are not only trying to derail your intended campaign, which in itself is a childish and rather obnoxious thing to do (no campaign should ever be railroaded so that the players have no room to maneuver, but what they're doing isn't about doing the unexpected ... I suspect that by now you rather expect them to be murdering bastards), but they are simply destroying the campaign for no reason other than to destroy it.
It sounds like a bunch of players who for one reason or another have decided that since you're a relatively inexperienced GM, it is okay to bully you and ruin your work.
Not only wouldn't I play with people like that. I would actively distance myself from them outside the game environment as well, because honestly, they sound like a bunch of bullies who have no respect for you and the effort you put into creating a campaign, and not only don't you need them, you're better off without them.
Again, players should never feel they have no room to maneuver. They should always feel that when you expect them to go left, they have the option of going right. But there should also be enough mutual respect between them and yourself, that they don't deliberately, actively try to destroy your campaign before it even gets off the ground.
|
|
The leader of fort inevitable is Lady Commander Audara Drovust:
http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Audara_Drovust
She is level 11, and should be able to wipe the floor with your PCs
Every Hellknight is at least 6th level (fighter 5/ Hellknight 1 where not otherwise specified).
The rule of the order of the pike in Fort inevitable is described multiple times as "Draconian".
If your PC's want to run around stabbing and robbing, you can, without resorting to any kind of meta-gaming, totally jsutify having a squad of hellknights bsut them up and either press them into slavery (what hellknights mean when they say "the hard way") or jsut execute them (the "easy" way).
Also, if your players really want to play this style of game, I would recommend "The way of the wicked" AP. It's geared towards the less than heroic adventurers, and they may find it more to their liking.
Then once dead he'd get a ten point buy and crap equipment if the GM let him play in the game anymore at all.
Human Wizard, 7 Strength, 14 Dex, 14 con, 18 Int, 8 Wis, 7 Cha
Lets play.
Doable. But my rolled for stats character would be worth 40ish points if I did a buy before adding racial mods. Quite a drop.
Basically it comes down to don't be a dick or else you'll have crap or if you're enough of a disruption, just get kicked out.
At any rate our group doesn't act like murder hobos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several years ago I had a player who, for reasons unknown, decided to perform a hostile takeover of the airship that that he and the other PCs were traveling on. This, naturally, got the entire party into hot water with him due to their affiliation. They were all locked up in the brig for the remainder of the voyage.
That is, until the problem player's character escaped, murdered the guards, and fought his way through the ship, ultimately slaying the captain. It was only then that he thought "now how do you fly one of these things?"
The ship crashed. Everyone died. PC induced TPK. I'd never thought I'd see the day. At our next game we reset the story to just before the hostile takeover. That particular player who started it all has not been invited back and it has since been a relatively blissful 5-6 years in our roleplaying group.
Cull the heard! Toss away the rotten fruit!
Several years ago I had a player who, for reasons unknown, decided to perform a hostile takeover of the airship that that he and the other PCs were traveling on. This, naturally, got the entire party into hot water with him due to their affiliation. They were all locked up in the brig for the remainder of the voyage.
That is, until the problem player's character escaped, murdered the guards, and fought his way through the ship, ultimately slaying the captain. It was only then that he thought "now how do you fly one of these things?"
The ship crashed. Everyone died. PC induced TPK. I'd never thought I'd see the day. At our next game we reset the story to just before the hostile takeover. That particular player who started it all has not been invited back and it has since been a relatively blissful 5-6 years in our roleplaying group.
Cull the heard! Toss away the rotten fruit!
It's always better to know why this happens than to act first, but Judge Dredd would be proud of you. Jokes aside, I imagine you had pinpointed why you wouldnt invite the player back from more than a single act of murderhoboness. Then again I also play with friends not just relative strangers, so I am biased towards trying to investigate the 'whys'.
Theoretical totally fantasy example: your player had been watching Captain Harlock and he also hated the lawful dystopian world Raving Dork had set up, so he decided to comandeer the ship, take over it and then propose his sky-pirate-revolution plan to his party whod have otherwise shot his plan down, but now it is done and voila, so commences the story of *CRASH BURN SCREAM DEATH*
Remember kids dont dump your intelligence to 3. /fantasy end
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several years ago I had a player who, for reasons unknown, decided to perform a hostile takeover of the airship that that he and the other PCs were traveling on. This, naturally, got the entire party into hot water with him due to their affiliation. They were all locked up in the brig for the remainder of the voyage.
That is, until the problem player's character escaped, murdered the guards, and fought his way through the ship, ultimately slaying the captain. It was only then that he thought "now how do you fly one of these things?"
The ship crashed. Everyone died. PC induced TPK. I'd never thought I'd see the day. At our next game we reset the story to just before the hostile takeover. That particular player who started it all has not been invited back and it has since been a relatively blissful 5-6 years in our roleplaying group.
Cull the heard! Toss away the rotten fruit!
It's always better to know why this happens than to act first, but Judge Dredd would be proud of you. Jokes aside, I imagine you had pinpointed why you wouldnt invite the player back from more than a single act of murderhoboness. Then again I also play with friends not just relative strangers, so I am biased towards trying to investigate the 'whys'.
Theoretical totally fantasy example: your player had been watching Captain Harlock and he also hated the lawful dystopian world Raving Dork had set up, so he decided to comandeer the ship, take over it and then propose his sky-pirate-revolution plan to his party whod have otherwise shot his plan down, but now it is done and voila, so commences the story of *CRASH BURN SCREAM DEATH*
Remember kids dont dump your intelligence to 3. /fantasy end
He didn't discuss it with the other players or with myself. He just went crazy (in-game) with no better excuse than "I'm playing my character the way he would act" which, apparently, was completely f@&&ing insane. It was all about him and the attention he was getting by doing it. Pure selfishness on his part. This was an extreme example, with smaller incidents leading up to it, so when the time came to get rid of him, it wasn't a hard decision for any of us.
In short, I can relate to the OP. If talking out-of-game like mature adults didn't/doesn't work, then they are clearly selfish asshats who merely want the attention, and it's time to move on, one way or the other.
An old friend of mine once told me about a guy, lets call him Jerk, in their regular gaming group who every campaign they played in would pull some heinous game derailment or attempt to murder every other player in the game.
One time, at the very end of the campaign when the PCs had finished their goal, Jerk's wizard was going to teleport the party out of the dungeon where they had just defeated the BBEG. Jerk teleported the whole party into the upper atmosphere, and then cast fly on himself while the rest of the party fell to their deaths. All except my friend's character, a dwarf barbarian who survived the flaming re-entry and impact.
Another time, Jerk had his character go out in the middle of the night, use magic to lure a bunch of children from an orphanage, and then slaughter them. He staged the homicide to make it look like the King's men had done it to punish the town for recent civil unrest. It led to a riot/uprising.
In a different campaign, Jerk was playing a two-handed weapon fighter/barbarian. He was cleaving a bunch of enemies while in melee with another PC. He just decided to not stop cleaving once he killed all the enemies, and got to the PCs square. Cut the other player's character in half, which led to party wide PVP with other members attempting to kill him.
Don't leave someone like this in your campaign, especially if they're a repeat offender. They're not going to stop that kind of toxic behavior on their own.
Mr. Jerk does make a lot of guest appearances in this thread.
Jerk stuff...
Don't leave someone like this in your campaign, especially if they're a repeat offender. They're not going to stop that kind of toxic behavior on their own.
Why did your friend have 3 campaigns with this guy?
As a player, I wouldn't let this guy ruin even the first one (I bet the teleport death was not his first dick-move in the entire campaign). Also, as a player, I wouldn't let the guy playing the OP's gunslinger remain in our group, either.
Guys like that get one decent discussion, at the table, of why their behavior is unacceptable. During that conversation I find out if the other players are siding with reason or with mayhem. If they side with reason (they always have, IME), then I make it clear that the bad player knocks it of or will be asked to leave the group. If he won't knock it off, I am more than happy to be the "bad guy" and tell the bad player he's not welcome to come play anymore. But if the other players are OK with this guy's mayhem, that's when I'll make my decision to part ways and look for a more mature group.
Either way, I couldn't finish one campaign with either of these players.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I would have so much fun with these guys! :)
I'm not gonna repeat what was said above other than Kerney and DM_Blake have the right of it: those guys are irredeemably evil at this point and they are due for a spanking by a large squad of mid-level paladins at this point. They should be overwhelmed and captured and their gear taken and sentenced for life in prison (worse than death penalty in a world that has raise dead). They should eat some serious humble pie.
Then you go: "18 years have passed. The kingdom has prospered. You are wretches and most of your STR and cunning is gone (insert appropriate disease / penalty / insanity that comes as a result of long term isolation). The door to your cell opens. A bookish man with a ledger enters. "The kingdom is at war with other country X. We have a suicide mission. If you succeed you will be granted a pardon with several acres of woodlands in a remote northern part of the kingdom where you will be expected to uphold the King's Law. Deal?"
Fun thread.
So, we've got a group of murder hobos, in the truest sense, derailing things - led by their psychopathic gunslinger leader, it seems.
Now, having read the player perspective note, and knowing that the Fort isn't exactly Sandpoint, a case could be made for trying to overthrow the Hellknights and establishing a nicer, good aligned order.
However, it doesn't sound like our plucky team of hobos are the guys that are going to usher in the New Era of Enlightenment for the Fort, given their predilections for random acts of violence.
The root issue, in my mind, is Lack of Consequences. The GM needs to apply a little bit of simple common sense consequence to the situation and PC actions. The PC's might run rampant for a while (and as a GM, I'd let them) BUT there will be a day of reckoning. The PC's might be able to restructure the Fort's rulership by means of their own power, but that is going to get the attention of people bigger and BADDER than they are. It's as simple as (Random act of violence) + (pissed off regional power) = (one dead gunslinger/PC party). Or, simply, 1+1=BOOM.
Given the location of the Fort, I'm surprised a few assassins from Daggermark haven't paid the PC's a visit yet...or a serious "Special Forces Unit" from a major Hellknight detachment. Both of which are just two examples of a reasonable consequence to PC actions.
An old friend of mine once told me about a guy [who] would ... attempt to murder every other player in the game.
Why didn't your friend ever call the police? Murder of one's fellow players, or people for that matter, is a serious crime and, quiet frankly, an affront to humanity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) First off, you need to decide whether or not this is a game you want to run. You can't force the players to play your way. If you don't want to GM for a game where the PCs want to take over a town, then politely tell your players you don't want to GM for them anymore. Gather another group with players that fit your style.
2) If you decide to continue running the game, then adapt it to fit what appeals to the players. The players obviously want to play a game where the party is a bunch of ruffians wanting to take over a town and loot a dungeon. They're having fun doing this--don't ruin it for them! Instead, play along with it. Introduce a rival organization. Create a turf war. Have consequences that escalate the game and make it more exciting. This could make for a really awesome campaign.
In short, if the players are ignoring/killing critical NPCs and adventure hooks, that's a sign the players aren't interested in what you have planned. Either find another group of players that are interested or change your plans to align with your players's interests.
Dot.
It's amusing how many posters have completely missed that one of the OP's players posted in this thread explaining things a bit from his perspective. ;)
It's amusing how many posters have completely missed that one of the OP's players posted in this thread explaining things a bit from his perspective. ;)
I don't think people missed it, but rather that it didn't change people's minds and in many cases only made things worse. The commentary about the party being Chaotic Neutral (as if that is an excuse) comes to mind as an example.
Their perspective seems to be "Well, it's a LE character watching us for the Hellknights. Kill it!!!" From there we get to trying to take the town, which is boggling but whatever.
It seems that they had decided their path and went with it. I'd not bother to roll out fighting them -- what happens if/when you botch that and they squirrel out a win? Now they have more experience and gear, and you have to do it all over again, giving them the attention that they want and justifying their decision.
Just end the game, talk to them out of game and see if they want to play the game as heroes, if that is the game you want to run, or bad guys, if that is the game you want to run. If you guys cannot come to a consensus, maybe playing together isn't a good idea.