Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Druss_the_Legend on January 08, 2017, 12:37:04 AM
-
Two pc's in my campaign have recently murdered an npc. It was done in order to further the goal of one of the player characters to be promoted within a fighters guild and assume command of a unit of sell-swords.
The pc's boss is not averse to murder himself but the players have taken things into their own hands and acted as judge and executioner, cleverly setting up the NPC to look like a traitor and done away with him (an act seen only by themselves. They are both equally guilty in this crime.
The murder was done quickly and without mercy. The killed NPC was shackled and unarmed at the time (and prone when the death blow was struck) due to fumbling to get a weapon to defend himself.
Would you award XP for such and act or would you not or would you award negative XP.
To be clear the NPC murdered was not an enemy but a rival and ally within the same guild of sell-swords.
Neither player is evil but they are certainly not averse to killing innocent NPC's. This act of murder could set them both on the road to more such acts but this is of course their choice. As GM I will see to it that they get an opportunity to explain themselves to the Leader of the guild who may see through their lies of deceit and seek to kill them/make enemies of them/exile them or something similar.
Thoughts?
-
I know RM has some boxed Xp rules!
I'm not a GM, but I would think that XP is giving if you actually learn something from the situation right?
So if you just go up behind a man and bash his skull in with mace, there isn't much learning in it.
But if the murderer had a struggle within him self if he should murder this NPC or not.. then there might be some gameplay XP in it!
-
Killing an unarmed foe is trivial*, so that wouldn't be worth much XP, if any. However, advancing a PC's personal goals is definitely worth XP. As far as I understand it, the act wasn't out of character for the PCs to do. Actions, however, do have consequences - if you want to punish them, do it through the roleplay, not through the game's mechanics.
*correction. Unless the unarmed foe was a warrior monk. However, this one was defenseless, so the point stands.
-
I am in agreement here. I would give only 1/10 XP for murdering what seems to be a helpless foe, and spread the XP across the two PCs. In other words they would each get 1/20 the XP value for the NPC.
But the PC that did this to advance himself would gain Plot XP. This probably be much more than the small amount that they got for killing the NPC.
But if anyone has seen the movie "Good Fellas" know that a boss that figures out an underling murdered someone to advance himself is someone that needs to meet with an accident. ;)
-BP
-
I too would give xp. Morality and experience to me are pretty much separate entities; if not, bad guys would never go up levels.
-
I am in agreement here. I would give only 1/10 XP for murdering what seems to be a helpless foe, and spread the XP across the two PCs. In other words they would each get 1/20 the XP value for the NPC.
But the PC that did this to advance himself would gain Plot XP. This probably be much more than the small amount that they got for killing the NPC.
But if anyone has seen the movie "Good Fellas" know that a boss that figures out an underling murdered someone to advance himself is someone that needs to meet with an accident. ;)
-BP
agrre with this totally. thanks for the post Bp.
-
I personally would award some xp, probably a tenth given a helpless opponent. But I would also have the event amplify. Did the npc have a family? friends etc. All you need is the right sort of mage to uncover the truth. Is magical evidence accepted by the courts? If not would the family/friends act on such information. One murder a bunch of enemies. If you went this root you could increase the xps as they are going to earn them down the track.
-
I personally would award some xp, probably a tenth given a helpless opponent. But I would also have the event amplify. Did the npc have a family? friends etc. All you need is the right sort of mage to uncover the truth. Is magical evidence accepted by the courts? If not would the family/friends act on such information. One murder a bunch of enemies. If you went this root you could increase the xps as they are going to earn them down the track.
yes, i agree the flow on effect will come into play in future sessions although he was 'judged'as a traitor by the pcs and they have been clever to use 'fabricated accusations' from an enemy they interrogated and later killed to hide the fact he did not say what they claim. layers of deception which could unravel when they are asked to explain themselves to the crime-lord leader of the sell-sword group of mercenaries they belong to. This leader is no fool and has skill in lie-perception due to his job involves dealing with informants and rumours almost daily. I plan to play out a courtroom style session where the players give their side of the story and 'evidence' to support their claims he was a traitor. For each lie they tell the crimelord will get a skill check using his lie-perception. The players ability to lie may not match their characters acting skill!
The players think they ave gottn away with the murder. They still might. But they will be very nervous when i spring a court session on them and they are asked some direct questions about their actions.
-
Would you award XP for such and act or would you not or would you award negative XP.
I'm in the middle of running an "EVIL" campaign at the moment, so you would think that this was an issue I have dealt with before, but it isn't. Why? Because I threw out RM's ridiculous, overly complicated, burdensome XP system long ago. No offense intended if you love it.
Since I don't award any sort of XP for individual criticals and kills, this is not a problem. Philosophically, I would not give any negative experience points unless the PCs have violated one of their Flaws (Code of Honor, Sense of Duty, Chivalrous, etc.) or a religious character has gone against their beliefs.
Why "punish" a roleplaying decision? Keep in mind, I ask that question philosophically, not from a RM experience system perspective. Let them face the in-game consequences of their decision. If this sort of roleplaying behavior really gets under your skin, then perhaps speaking with your players about the sort of campaign you prefer to run is in order. I'm an advocate for maximum player freedom! But GMs need to enjoy the game they're running too.
If I was using the old XP system I would not give any XP for hits or criticals delivered to a helpless foe. Because the RM XP system appears, to me at least, to intend the rewarding of players overcoming legitimate obstacles and dangers, I wouldn't think killing a shackled NPC qualifies.
I do recall that the old system does allow the rewarding of the "Kill Points" for an enemy dispatched through non combat means. For example, a clever PC could lead a troll into a deadly trap get the Kill Points even though they never engaged in combat.
In the case of the shackled enemy, I would divide the Kill Points among the PC's responsible for the inception and execution of the plan that led to the downfall of their enemy.
-
Would you award XP for such and act or would you not or would you award negative XP.
I'm in the middle of running an "EVIL" campaign at the moment, so you would think that this was an issue I have dealt with before, but it isn't. Why? Because I threw out RM's ridiculous, overly complicated, burdensome XP system long ago. No offense intended if you love it.
Since I don't award any sort of XP for individual criticals and kills, this is not a problem. Philosophically, I would not give any negative experience points unless the PCs have violated one of their Flaws (Code of Honor, Sense of Duty, Chivalrous, etc.) or a religious character has gone against their beliefs.
Why "punish" a roleplaying decision? Keep in mind, I ask that question philosophically, not from a RM experience system perspective. Let them face the in-game consequences of their decision. If this sort of roleplaying behavior really gets under your skin, then perhaps speaking with your players about the sort of campaign you prefer to run is in order. I'm an advocate for maximum player freedom! But GMs need to enjoy the game they're running too.
If I was using the old XP system I would not give any XP for hits or criticals delivered to a helpless foe. Because the RM XP system appears, to me at least, to intend the rewarding of players overcoming legitimate obstacles and dangers, I wouldn't think killing a shackled NPC qualifies.
I do recall that the old system does allow the rewarding of the "Kill Points" for an enemy dispatched through non combat means. For example, a clever PC could lead a troll into a deadly trap get the Kill Points even though they never engaged in combat.
In the case of the shackled enemy, I would divide the Kill Points among the PC's responsible for the inception and execution of the plan that led to the downfall of their enemy.
Good post Vector. I have been milling things over a bit last few days in my head.
consequence of this will be them having to explain themselves to the leader.
the murder was motivated by ambition and to achieve a personal character goal so i applaud that. and will reward it with XP for player goal achieved. [probably splitting it between both players who committed the act as they were equally guilty].
no xp either positive or negative will be awarded for the murder as it was not overcoming a challenge. xp was given for the clever plan. to both players so i guess that is generous?
this has highlighted to me the importance of having certain 'safeguards' in place to guide pc behaviour more towards the hero type or anti-hero type campaign i like to run. i am also an advocate for player freedom.
I have planned a special 'court room' session where both players will get to make their report to their boss. im giving them an out and was contemplating a heavy handed (you killed by captain so now you will pay response)... Heavy handed GMs need to ease up on the restrictions they give players. but i have something else planned that will not be expected.
Their boss, the crimelord will question them and more than likely see thru at least a few of their lies. This will be a tense session and essentially an interrogation with them under pressure to hold up the deception under his scrutiny with them most likely thinking if he detects their lies he will kill them. After this questioning, the bosses reaction will be... nothing. What? really? his captain of his men is murdered and he does nothing?
The crimelord will speak privately with each player in turn after their report in public. At first he will grill them on details of their report seeking to uncover the lies which are there and rather obvious due to the motive. He will reward one of them with a promotion to replace the captain he murdered. (This is the player goal achieved and in all honesty is deserving of the job as he is a superb leader of men... the player is an officer in the army in real life). The crime-lord will let it known (privately) to each player that he knows exactly what they did... murdered one of his men... and the reason behind it... greed/ambition... and he will let them know that from this point forward they must follow his orders to the letter and not overstep their authority ever again or the price will be their death (he has 20 loyal sell-swords who can do it).
There will of course be a catch (there always is in my campaign). The men below him will also be promoted and a new co-captain appointed who is at least as ambitious as the players themselves. Just like them he will do almost anything (yes even murder) to advance in the organisation so the players will need to watch their backs because someone is watching and waiting for them to slip up and when they do, he will seize the opportunity to replace them, just as they did to the previous captain.
But WAIT! There is more... the sell-sword they killed has a large dept that he owed to the organisation that they have now inherited. It must be paid by the pcs and within a month or they will be turfed out stripped of any rank/status they have and left to fend for themselves. This last complication probably isnt actually true but the crime-lords way of punishing them for overstepping their rank. They will never know the truth because the one who can confirm it is dead by their own hand. This could be an ongoing 'tax' they need to pay to the crime-lord as a retirement fund for the murdered mans wife and very large family.
-
Good post Vector. I have been milling things over a bit last few days in my head.
consequence of this will be them having to explain themselves to the leader.
the murder was motivated by ambition and to achieve a personal character goal so i applaud that. and will reward it with XP for player goal achieved. [probably splitting it between both players who committed the act as they were equally guilty]...
Sounds like an awesome campaign! I like the idea of the unscrupulous rival patiently waiting for the right moment to strike.
Hopefully, the players will use murder and treachery very rarely. The crimelord may think ambition and ruthlessness should sometimes be rewarded, but mad dogs will have to be put down. I think someone mentioned Goodfellas?
-
Given the scene as you set it up "the foe was helpless, shackled..." then the actual murder, no. However, the rest of the set up that you gave us; further the player's standing in the guild, set up the target to look like a traitor, able to complete the goal, then certainly I would give XP for that. The actual murder? They could have laid him down in a puddle of water and let him drown, or just set the room on fire and walked out.
But as the GM, you could award more or less XP base don how creative the players were in falsifying evidence, how deep they go in setting him up? Circumstantial evidence, wrong place wrong time, deep rooted "evidence" that simply can't be refuted? Did anyone else know of what was going on? Were they spied upon while falsifying information or during the actual murder? In one of my campaigns, not one player bothered to roll Sense Ambush/Assassin when they were trying to burn down a warehouse. When they came out of the warehouse, they were surrounded and couldn't go back inside to seek cover since the building was on fire! Great idea, poor execution.
-
I'd likely award kill points based on the NPC's level per RM2 stuff. I don't see any reason to reduce those XPs, since on average they're not as much as you'd get for a flat-out fight using RAW in RM2. If I was using my modified XP stuff, both characters would get XPs based on the planning.
Repercussions for the action have nothing to do with XPs, so I wouldn't consider that when calculating anything. And since my campaign uses the Sleuth Profession, they'd have to be awfully creative when it came to faking evidence.... ;)
-
I'd likely award kill points based on the NPC's level per RM2 stuff. I don't see any reason to reduce those XPs, since on average they're not as much as you'd get for a flat-out fight using RAW in RM2. If I was using my modified XP stuff, both characters would get XPs based on the planning.
Repercussions for the action have nothing to do with XPs, so I wouldn't consider that when calculating anything. And since my campaign uses the Sleuth Profession, they'd have to be awfully creative when it came to faking evidence.... ;)
no hard evidence really. The pcs claim an NPC enemy that was captured and interrogated named the guy a traitor. They killed this first NPC to cover the fact he did not actually say what they claim he did. Its far from ironclad. Next they claim the 'traitor' proved his guilt by refusing to comply to being interrogated with a truth potion and when he wasnt unshackled he went for a weapon/failed/was killed. That part is actually interesting but could be explained by the accused losing patience with them or being provoked (there was a history here of these guys not getting along).
The questions the crimelord/their boss will ask them is...
why did they kill him and not merely subdue him?
why did they not bring the accused traitor to him immediately?
why didnt they send word of his suspected guilt before taking action themselves?
what if the captive that named the accused traitor was lying?
who was present during the interrogation of the captive that named him traitor? (just the two NPCs)
the accused 'traitor' would surely have valuable information about who he was working for/their plans etc etc, killing him before a full interrogation was a mistake.
-
If the kill doesn't advance the character's story, I do not give any experience. That's why I prefer the RMU experience system which lacks kill points. If it does advance the story, I do.
-
If the kill doesn't advance the character's story, I do not give any experience. That's why I prefer the RMU experience system which lacks kill points. If it does advance the story, I do.
kill/murder advances pcs personal goal. XP will be warded. pc will still need to sell the story to his boss to gain max XP/bonus XP.
-
It sounds like it would be fun to give them the option of questioning under truth potion too. Maybe even have their murdered comrade come back as undead to make life tough for them. This could literally come back to haunt them.
-
What about guilt? Is there a chance either of the PC's could feel guilt for what they did?
What if there is a widow and children who need to be fed, or maybe an aging mother who depended on the money her son made to get special healing treatments?
There is also the possibility of a haunting. If you did this I would do small things at first then as time goes on make it more obvious.
Plot twist: The boss (crimelord) pulls each PC aside at a later time and tells one (or even both) that he wants the other dead. If the PC achieves the goal they get a promotion.
-
Firstly, the PCs are clearly evil, unless you hold to a world-view which would classify "The killed {ally} was shackled and unarmed at the time..." as morally neutral or positive. If you do, please tell me where you live so I can stay away.
Secondly, absolutely not, not in an EXP kind of system which RM is. If you were playing in a use-to-improve system then I'd be more willing to.
-
With a murder, of course there would be severe future repercussions.
NPCs trying to knock off the PC.
NPC loved ones being targeted.
Family and friend betrayal.
The law seeking justice that leads to execution.
In my game world it would be a sort of Game of Thrones effect, where in the future the ramifications probably will come back to haunt the murderer despite any personal selfish goals.
-
no hard evidence really. The pcs claim an NPC enemy that was captured and interrogated named the guy a traitor. They killed this first NPC to cover the fact he did not actually say what they claim he did. Its far from ironclad. Next they claim the 'traitor' proved his guilt by refusing to comply to being interrogated with a truth potion and when he wasnt unshackled he went for a weapon/failed/was killed. That part is actually interesting but could be explained by the accused losing patience with them or being provoked (there was a history here of these guys not getting along).
The questions the crimelord/their boss will ask them is...
why did they kill him and not merely subdue him?
why did they not bring the accused traitor to him immediately?
why didnt they send word of his suspected guilt before taking action themselves?
what if the captive that named the accused traitor was lying?
who was present during the interrogation of the captive that named him traitor? (just the two NPCs)
the accused 'traitor' would surely have valuable information about who he was working for/their plans etc etc, killing him before a full interrogation was a mistake.
They can only hope they aren't interrogated by a competent Mentalism user or a Sleuth. Magic can have an interesting impact on that stuff. It can also come up later, if the crime lord doesn't trust one (or both) of the PCs and has them stealthily followed and 'monitored' by a caster of some kind. In my game every watch organization in larger towns had a Sleuth on staff (the detective division if you will), which made players extra-cautious.
-
What about guilt? Is there a chance either of the PC's could feel guilt for what they did?
This notion raises an interesting question. Is it appropriate for the GM to tell a player how his or her character feels? Barring any relevant Flaws, of course.
Apologies if that is not what your are suggesting.
I would never tell a player how their character "feels" about any particular action. And as a player, that would be very annoying. Either the player decides he and/or his character feels guilty or not.
It would be a very cool role-playing choice for the player to decide he felt guilty over what he had done. Could start a quest for some sort of redemption.
It could also be just as interesting if he decides that his character is a ruthless bastard who doesn't give two !#%$.
-
They can only hope they aren't interrogated by a competent Mentalism user or a Sleuth...
I have questions about the Sleuth class. Do you use them? How do you handle them? Are they common or a rarity? Are their visions or magic based conclusions taken as proof, or must they gather actual evidence too.
If they were too common I don't see how there could be a crimelord or a thieves guild. Unless they only targeted people that can't hire Sleuths I suppose.
-
They can only hope they aren't interrogated by a competent Mentalism user or a Sleuth...
I have questions about the Sleuth class. Do you use them? How do you handle them? Are they common or a rarity? Are their visions or magic based conclusions taken as proof, or must they gather actual evidence too.
If they were too common I don't see how there could be a crimelord or a thieves guild. Unless they only targeted people that can't hire Sleuths I suppose.
I use them, but they're fairly rare (only certain cultures produce them, and they guard the training closely). Since they're Channeling, they answer to a god in my world and have their spell access and use controlled by that deity. My world system tends to cap spell access for Channelers until they complete certain actions and obey strictures placed on them by their patron god.
In terms of field work, Sleuths can present their magical findings as evidence (since they're in effect minor clerics of a god), but how seriously they're taken varies from place to place. In some realms they're vigorously backed by the system (and you're right...there are few crime lords or the like in this realms), but in others they're just another source of information and often use their magical findings to support physical evidence gathering.
I've found them workable and interesting with those strictures, and have had one or two players play them over the years.
-
They can only hope they aren't interrogated by a competent Mentalism user or a Sleuth...
I have questions about the Sleuth class. Do you use them? How do you handle them? Are they common or a rarity? Are their visions or magic based conclusions taken as proof, or must they gather actual evidence too.
If they were too common I don't see how there could be a crimelord or a thieves guild. Unless they only targeted people that can't hire Sleuths I suppose.
I use them, but they're fairly rare (only certain cultures produce them, and they guard the training closely). Since they're Channeling, they answer to a god in my world and have their spell access and use controlled by that deity. My world system tends to cap spell access for Channelers until they complete certain actions and obey strictures placed on them by their patron god.
In terms of field work, Sleuths can present their magical findings as evidence (since they're in effect minor clerics of a god), but how seriously they're taken varies from place to place. In some realms they're vigorously backed by the system (and you're right...there are few crime lords or the like in this realms), but in others they're just another source of information and often use their magical findings to support physical evidence gathering.
I've found them workable and interesting with those strictures, and have had one or two players play them over the years.
Thank you for the reply. I like how you've handled the Sleuth.
I guess if you make high level Sleuths as rare as a Holmes, Poirot, or Spade then they can't be everywhere at once.
-
Yeah, high level Sleuths are rare and often closer to priests or monks than actual detectives.
One thing I do with many Channeling professions is require them to under rituals of ascension (trials, basically) at both fifth and tenth level to gain access to more powerful spells (especially the semis). It started with the Paladin (because we redid the profession) and expanded to the Sleuth and some other classes.
-
What about guilt? Is there a chance either of the PC's could feel guilt for what they did?
This notion raises an interesting question. Is it appropriate for the GM to tell a player how his or her character feels? Barring any relevant Flaws, of course.
Apologies if that is not what your are suggesting.
I would never tell a player how their character "feels" about any particular action. And as a player, that would be very annoying. Either the player decides he and/or his character feels guilty or not.
It would be a very cool role-playing choice for the player to decide he felt guilty over what he had done. Could start a quest for some sort of redemption.
It could also be just as interesting if he decides that his character is a ruthless bastard who doesn't give two !#%$.
I think A GM could award experience for great roleplaying if the player feels guilt. Or maybe some other bonus that the guilty reaction leads to some sort of forgiveness especially if they followed up with some unselfish response.
The ruthless played character, I myself wouldn't feel any connection with nor any need to further their story. They can play themself out of my game and go find someone who will tell the story that they want.
-
The ruthless played character, I myself wouldn't feel any connection with nor any need to further their story. They can play themself out of my game and go find someone who will tell the story that they want.
I'm reminded of a recent post where I said I was an advocate for total player freedom, but the GM has to enjoy the game too!
I ran an epic "GOOD" campaign for many, many years so I and my players were ready for a change. They've been having a lot of fun playing EVIL and anti-hero sorts in our latest game.
-
I agree with most that the murder was worth little or no experience
Creating the plot to frame the NPC and working to advance themselves would be worth XP
The consequences for their actions can be a different thing. I am somewhat confused as you keep referring to the "Crimelord" boss holding a court session.
The word crimelord does not envision to me an honorable person who would care overly how someone died unless a personal favorite or a family member or perhaps caused by a rival group if any exists
Not so sure on a "court" case either with the crimelord connotation. You explain yourself to him and if he is not happy with it you are dead
Its your world but I would play evil NPC leaders as evil and not a hardened good guy. (unless that is how you have his character) They will exploit their people as much as they can and the characters could either be seen as the new hit men or a threat to be eliminated
I play an evil campaign (at theplayers choice) and characters die. Frequently
-
I agree with most that the murder was worth little or no experience
Creating the plot to frame the NPC and working to advance themselves would be worth XP
The consequences for their actions can be a different thing. I am somewhat confused as you keep referring to the "Crimelord" boss holding a court session.
The word crimelord does not envision to me an honorable person who would care overly how someone died unless a personal favorite or a family member or perhaps caused by a rival group if any exists
Not so sure on a "court" case either with the crimelord connotation. You explain yourself to him and if he is not happy with it you are dead
Its your world but I would play evil NPC leaders as evil and not a hardened good guy. (unless that is how you have his character) They will exploit their people as much as they can and the characters could either be seen as the new hit men or a threat to be eliminated
I play an evil campaign (at theplayers choice) and characters die. Frequently
the cimelord isnt evil but neither is he honourable. he is motivated by money and infamy/reputation
he has a traitor in his organisation. it wasnt known who that person was. one of the pcs was 2nd in command but cleverly framed the first in command using fabricated statements from a captive who was interrogated and then set the guy up by provoking a reduction to get him to attack them... flimsy evidence at best.
crimelord will question the pcs and seek clarification on specifics if he feels its needed.
then he will question them one by one.
it really depends how they role-play this but ive given them an out that doesnt involve killing them.
there story will most likely not hold up. he will see their true motive for murdering his captain.
sure he could kill them as well and make an example of them but hitting them with a huge depts does three things
1) keeps the pcs in his service and in the campaign (one is a valuable sleper agent/spy the other is a good leader)
2) makes him money
3) gives the pcs pause for though as to whether it was worth it
The only issue i can see here is that there still must be a traitor in his organisation... the threat must be dealt with but without knowing he cant kill everyone can he? id say he will pick someone to make an example of... even if they r innocent and kill him in front of everyone... it send s a message to everyone else and puts the real traitor at ease (his plan so he can wait for them to slip up). The other possible issue here is pcs this ambitious could be a threat to the crimelord himself.
-
I play an evil campaign (at theplayers choice) and characters die. Frequently
Is there some sort of Brotherhood us evil GMs can join? Uh, I mean GMs that run evil campaigns!
-
Basically zero XP for the kill, it is how they handle the rest of the collateral effects that could earn XP. If the plot was good enough I might award Xp for that planning. On the other hand, the news of what they did will get out, and then How will other Mercenary Captains react to them? What about their subordinate commanders in the unit? Will they decide that the Klingon promotion method is the way to go? Will they respect this new commander that murdered their commander, a man they all respected and perhaps even loved? Will they follow orders or perhaps allow the enemy to slip past them to their new commander?
-
Basically zero XP for the kill, it is how they handle the rest of the collateral effects that could earn XP. If the plot was good enough I might award Xp for that planning. On the other hand, the news of what they did will get out, and then How will other Mercenary Captains react to them? What about their subordinate commanders in the unit? Will they decide that the Klingon promotion method is the way to go? Will they respect this new commander that murdered their commander, a man they all respected and perhaps even loved? Will they follow orders or perhaps allow the enemy to slip past them to their new commander?
yes, i like the possible flow on effects for the rest of the unit. My plan is the crimelord will not reveal this 'error in judgement' to the rest of the unit but keep this as leverage against them should the pcs step out of line again and effectively turn the rest of the unit against him. Even if the previous commander was not that popular (he wasnt) dealing with him like this actually makes the new commander worse because the pc has set the precedent that if he doesnt like u or you get in his way or you tick him off and ur dead. Thats not going to inspire loyalty from them but may actually get them thinking of a mutiny themselves... the old i miss the last boss, he wasnt as bad as we thought... scenario... and the... lets get rid of this new guy and replace him with someone we like... the pcs started this... now they have to deal with it happening to them...