Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sammael_the_Chosen 08-01-04, 07:37 PM	Hello. I'd appreciate some feedback on the dilemma I have as a DM after tonight's session. I'll cross-post this on other forums so as to get as much feedback as possible. Tonight's session went unexpectedly for me. I had planned to have the party (level 11-12, NG sun elf wizard, NG human cleric of Selune, LN human fighter, N moon elf monk - yes, I allow nonlawful monks, N human enchanter, CN halfling rogue) be ambushed by a group of bounty hunters who are after the halfling's head (reward 20,000 gp). Unfortunately, halfling's player was away tonight, so I had to play him as an NPC. There is a lot more to the story, but the point is this: the first bounty hunters (four level 5 fighter-types) was an unwitting decoy for the second group (four level 9-10 characters). After the first group attacked (and got slaughtered/disabled in two rounds), the second group teleported in (having scried on the first group via magical tokens disguised as coins) and started its attack. The PCs made short work of them as well, but managed to take one (a CE half-elf bard) alive. Party monk disarmed him and was standing above with a sword to his heart, and then the enchanter cast dominate person and proceeded to interrogate him. After the enchanter ordered him to remove all his magic items, I decreed that another save was allowed, and he passed. Now, since he was pretty intelligent, and had good diplomatic skills, I decided that he would plead for his life and try to get them to let him go. When that failed, I had him plead to the LN fighter to take him to prison (since he saw that other party members weren't so keen on letting him stay alive). Now, the LN fighter is a fairly high-ranking member of the Berdusk guard, and he would have certainly taken him to jail... but then the monk coup-the-graced him. The monk had a few reasons to do this, although he acted mostly on impulse (the bard demanded that he should be taken to prison, which is what ****** the monk off, I believe). Whoops. Murder. Within the Berdusk zone of control. The fighter requested that the party returned to Berdusk, and the monk went willingly and even offered fighter his weapon as a sign of goodwill. They went to the city guard, and the monk was allowed to stay free until the trial (based on previous behavior and the fact that three party members are Harpers). And here I was, stuck with an unpredicted situation, and trying desperately to think of something to get him free. Since the murdered bard admitted to being in Darkhold a few weeks previously while being interrogated, and one of the party Harpers informed the Twilight Hall of this, I had one of the Harper-high-ups offer to be the monk's lawyer, in exchange for two things. First, the Harper would do her best to push for a verdict where the monk had to pay for the murdered bard to be raised (so, 5,000 gp and 900 xp for a 9th level character as per my campaign house rules), so that the Harpers don't have to pay those costs - and then get to interrogate him to their heart's content. Second, that he should become an agent for the Harpers. Due to his vast knowledge and other campaign circumstances, the Harpers would really want him in their ranks, murder or no. The player asked for some time to think, which I gave him. And then, he declined. He said that it was OOC for him to pay for the bard's raising since he didn't feel any remorse for the act, and that he did not want to become a pawn of the Harpers. Fair enough. I warned him that he is looking at a sentence in prison and that he'll have to effectively retire the character, and he said that he'd rather do that than play OOC. The session thus ended. But, he really likes playing this character. As a DM, I would absolutely HATE for him to have to retire him. Furthermore, I had some nifty plans for his character's future (although that is secondary). And, after all this introductory text, here is my question: how should I fix the trial so that he doesn't have to retire the character?
Mythmere 08-01-04, 07:48 PM	How about adding a third party group that comes in with fabricated evidence or begins bribing or does something else to get the monk off the hook. The party will be bewildered, and will be concerned about this group's motives. Seems a lot like railroading, though. Or, the bard was operating w/o a valid right to hunt bounties. Thus, self defense (though on weak legal ground since he was dominated at the time). Hmm.... tough one.
taltamir 08-01-04, 08:13 PM	ouch... headach... ok so the players are harpers and burdasks(whats that).. what do the PLAYERS think of that player? see he might be their friend, but he just commited murder, or did he now? did he commit murder in their eyes? If not, then they can help get him off the hook, one of them can secretly pay to have the guy raised.. he could escape and they all move to a different location, etc. or even fabricate evidence in the name of good! Also, define murder? there is the ability to raise dead so it isnt that critical, its a monatry issue, and further, there is the issue of the reason, i mean they WERE attacked, and they DID slaughter the whole group... is it any less murder because he was dominated at the time of death and thus helpless? well wasnt it murder killing the 5th level party that was too weak to present a challance either? in which the whole group participated no less... The main reason i see for this whole dilema is skewed morals... its okay to kill them... as long as they can give the semblence of defending themselves... how do you justify the killings? One thing to do is this... muder becomes an issue of money and reoccorance.. if they think it will happen again, and that the subject was a victem, execution. If it is thought to be a single occurance, and that he just lost his head in the HEAT OF COMBAT (or rather afterheat)... then the character is FINED for the amount required to resurrect the victem, and compensate him... if they cannot afford it and noone pays for them, then they receive more severe punishment... also who was it that called murder? was it the teammates? the character could argue against them and try to convince them it wasnt.... if he doesnt, then no matter what the result those characters CANNOT play together again. characters of vastly different moral beleifs CANNOT play together and NOT clash... its just the way things are. If it was up to me, id talk alot with the pcs, present all these arguments, and let them come up with a way out of this mess, cause this mess is a moral dilema that they caused. and it MIGHT very well cause a break within the group, and i mean a real life break edit: oh i rethought this alittle.. if the players are fine playing with such different chracters but want more to resolve this, you can use the following plot... the murderous pc is contacted when alone... a distant friend or familiy member who is a powerful mage is desperate for help, and needs it NOW, it cannot wait till he calls his friends, his life is in danger and he needs him to come through the portal to find the mage out of spells (or nearly), and under attack, he devistated his foes but ran out of spells and is now facing a few weaker ones, but enough to take him down without help... thats why he used certain spells (you decide it later, i aint checking the PHB for this now, its your campaign you do the work XD). The pc saves him... the rest are sent by their respective orders to catch him (as they are experienced with his motives and style), as they think he escaped to avoid punishment.... and a bounty is offered on him.... they either track him or receive a note from him asking for their assitance aswell, because the group that was after the mage was working for a BBEG (big bad evil guy).... go on to save the world and he gets pardoned in the process...
Shadowmagyk 08-01-04, 08:22 PM	Well, all the courts have to do is have everyone explain what happened. They will see that they wre fighting one group, and another teleported in to finish what the first party could not. They will also see that the party has scrying devices disguised as coins in there possession, which would mean that the other party premeditated the attempted murder. They gave the Bard a choice of telling them what was going on (and I believe that a sword in the chest means "tell us what you know, or you will die). The Bard was dominated at first, but he later made his save, so the spell failed. The spellcaster had to know this, which means that he was acting of his own free will. He is obviously evil since he tried to kill the party, and would say anything to prevent his death, even asking to go to jail. The monk, because he is wise (WIS), deduced that it was a ploy, and decided that the world would be better without him (N). The Cleric of the city can Speak With Dead, and will learn that this scenario is true.
Tusz 08-01-04, 08:37 PM	He wasn't dominated when he was killed. He passed the save he got for removing his magic items. I'd go with self defense. If you want the monk back, the judge could, too.
Phrennzy 08-01-04, 09:38 PM	Judge Shadowmagyk has ruled. Go with it. Edit: Another thing. Make sure that the authorities recognize the dead bard as a known criminal. Perhaps he and his group had several warrants out for their arrest - to the point of Kill On Sight. Who know what evil the bard had done to reach 9th level? Maybe he murdered nobles by attending their parties as an entertainer, and then poisoning everyone. If you make him a known criminal, you get two things: The Monk is kinda let off the hook, You just gained a few NPCs - the bard's nefarious friends who KNOW the Monk killed thier friend, and now plot revenge. Not to mention his 9th level rogue wife, who was too pregnant to go on the mission with him. Now she is one vengeful broad.
Eck 08-02-04, 02:18 AM	I hate it when someone answers a question that wasn't asked, but I find myself doing it every once in a while. :) (like now) What sucks about this was something you said to him already... I warned him that he is looking at a sentence in prison and that he'll have to effectively retire the character, and he said that he'd rather do that than play OOC. BEWARE! The next session is a dangerous one. If you back down now, you run the risk of your PC's exploiting your generosity. Or even complaining if they do face jail time for crimes they comit in the future... How come joe didn't go to jail and I did? I think the problem is that you are his friend, and it sucks if your friend goes to jail(especially if you send him there). But you shouldn't be looking at this through the eyes of a friend. You should be looking at this through the eyes of the judge or jury. Now, with that being said. Maybe the party can do something about this. The Lawful Neutral guy probably won't do anything illegal, but the rest of the pary might bribe the judge or jury, lie on the stand, plant false evidence, etc. Or they could go the legal route and offer to pay the fine/etc. for him. Another thing that can happen is have much more down time between adventures. And let him serve his sentence and maybe even make parole early. - Eck
Relic 08-02-04, 08:46 AM	I'd give him the jail sentence then have a third party (perhaps an evil group like the Cult of the Dragon/Iron Throne/Red Wizards/etc) stage a jail brake. They are willing to let him go free if the monk a) reveals some secret information that is worth knowing, b) retrieve a particular item from his companions, c) become a double agent for the evil group, or d) anything else you can think of. This way, the player gets to keep his character and you get to add dimension and plot into the mix. I would actually probably have one of the people that brake him out of jail be some ex-lover or a sibling. He/She would genuinely want to save the monk and have him become a partner in villiany (sp?) yet would still possess the potential to set-up/kill the jailbird. Later down the road the monk might have the potential to become a villian in his own right or he might become a hero and have his crimes vindicated.
MrkGrismer 08-02-04, 11:42 AM	Or alternatively have the third party stage the jailbreak to get another prisoner out of jail, a really really bad one. Then perhaps the monk can help stop the jailbreak, or minimize casualties or otherwise redeem himself (he did kill a helpless prisoner, right?)
MarkB 08-02-04, 02:51 PM	Here's a twist: This bard sounds like he was a pretty villainous guy. He was a bounty hunter, but was he really acting within the law at the time? You could have the court conduct a trial of the bard first, using Speak with Dead to hear his side of the story. If the court finds him sufficiently guilty to warrant a death sentence, then the Monk was merely jumping the gun, and gets off with a hefty fine and a reprimand. If the bard should have received a lesser sentence, the Monk is fined the cost of a Raise Dead, and faces a jail term in inverse proportion to the severity of the bard's crimes, if any. After all, there's no point in the court ordering that the bard be Raised unless he's worth the expenditure, whether the Monk is fined or not.
mythandra 08-02-04, 03:58 PM	The good guys were attacked, the bad guys were beaten. If the pc's are civilians, then what happened post combat was technically murder. No way to get around that. If the monk is a member of some kind of militia/military, one could argue that the bard was a pow (weak, but roll with this for a second) in which case his death wouldn't necessarily be murder unless there's some kind of geneva convention-esque document floating around somwhere that dictates the treatment of pow's. The most logical and natural end to this is that the monk goes to prison. Actually, he'd probably be put to death, depending on the political climate. Have the pc's done anything in particular that would endear them to the king? If so, he may be able to pardon the monk at a moment's notice. I think you're better off imprisioning the monk and showing the player that actions have consequences. The game will be more fun for him becuase of it, even if he has to make another character.
Shadowmagyk 08-02-04, 05:14 PM	I think you're better off imprisioning the monk and showing the player that actions have consequences. The game will be more fun for him becuase of it, even if he has to make another character. I agree with this. I was just offering an answer to your question about how to get him to keep his monk. I was going to finish my original post with: "No matter what you try, it will be cheesy if the monk does not go to jail. He needs to pay for the crime that he committed. The player is expecting this, anyway. "
mythandra 08-02-04, 05:32 PM	Originally posted by Shadowmagyk I agree with this. I was just offering an answer to your question about how to get him to keep his monk. I was going to finish my original post with: "No matter what you try, it will be cheesy if the monk does not go to jail. He needs to pay for the crime that he committed. The player is expecting this, anyway. " Da, comrade. Da. We are in complete agreement. Send the monk to federal-pound-me-in-the-*** prison!
taltamir 08-02-04, 08:12 PM	maybe in the dnd world they dont do that to the other inmates ???