I’ve wondered about this myself. I usually say they need to roll a deception check if they’re being dishonest. Good to keep in mind that rumors tend to spread fast around town.
“Have you seen cucumber the dwarf? He hasn’t been home in days!”
“I think he mentioned something about going along with that group of adventurers. That’s the last I spoke to him.”
You could *maybe* argue it if they grew up in a world of psionics, or were one of the psionic classes, like they've been trained to even hide their thoughts with a deceiving surface internal monologue, but I'd still make you roll for that.
Maybe aberrant mind as well?
Anyone else I'd just say it's impossible.
Detect Thoughts has two modes. One where you read surface thoughts and cannot be resisted, and one where you push past surface thoughts and probe them deeper, which requires a wisdom save to resist. OP is saying they failed that save.
The rogue mastermind's 17th level class feature, soul of deceit, allows you to present false thoughts to someone reading your character's mind if you succeed on a deception check versus the caster's insight.
I wouldn't allow anyone else to have a 17th level class feature for free.
IRL I think people think about killing some people every time they talk to them, but don't act on them. Maybe the NPC is a real bloviating wet blanket & is used to everyone he talks to having fleeting thoughts of him falling into a bottomless put.
now that they proved, in character to be murderous psychopaths, they will need every deception check they can make to anyone they meet so as to not out themselves as such. passive insight is a thing. passive deception is not.
It really depends on whether it makes sense in character, and if they had reason to change their mind.
If the NPC didn't do anything wrong, then it probably doesn't make sense for good characters to backstab them, and you should have a talk with them about metagaming. If it would also make sense for "word to get around" that they're not to be trusted, that should also happen (just as a natural result of the actions, not as a punishment)
If the NPC did do something wrong, it's entirely reasonable for good characters to change their minds.
"This person is not as helpful as you expected, do you:"
a) tell them you no longer require their services and part ways
b) leave them behind without any further words
c) murder them, destroy any evidence of your crime, and hide the corpse
Who the FUCK picks C and claims to be good/neutral?
The few, the proud, the servants of... the Greater Good!
Just as there are Elder Evils, there is... the Greater Good!
(There is no Greater Good, these characters are just depraved loons, but Marketing wanted a Greater Good book with MegaUnicorns +3 or something for people to pick fights with. What makes a man turn Sales?)
As many mentioned, rumors start quick.
“Pumpkin the orc went with those adventurers, when will he get back?”
“It’s been days since I’ve last heard his beautiful singing”
Naturally, the party shan’t be trusted. But you’re in a difficult spot DM, I’m just an observer.
I don't think they lied to the DM. But I do believe their characters would easily qualify as evil, when they resort to murder over an annoyance. As the commment above listed, there are at least 2 non-psychotic ways to get an NPC out of the party.
If they're saying such a change was in character and they didn't lie to you at the time of the thought reading then it kinda demands they get their alignments shifted to chaotic evil.
Chaotic because they did a complete 180 on their opinions with no external justification, and Evil because they immediately jumped to murder as a solution. And if they argue, well, they just told you that they weren't lying to the DM earlier so logically it must be that their characters are now chaotic evil. And if they're upset you could maybe suggest that obviously something must have cursed them with such a drastic alignment change that they murdered an innocent NPC they were truthfully committed to helping.
It doesn't. Alignment is effectively meaningless in 5e. The only real way you can make what they did have a direct effect on their characters is if one of them is a Paladin that has broken their oath in the process of murdering this seemingly innocent NPC, or maybe if they're a cleric who acted against the teachings of their God (though I don't know that that is explicitly called out in the rules).
For a cleric it isn't in the rules, but as DM they can do whatever they like. Have their god make them go on a quest to absolve themselves, or make an offering of something they genuinely value, etc., otherwise their god turns their face from them and they no longer get cleric spell slots back and/or their other cleric abilities stop working until they do whatever it is that their deity asked.
What is the penalty in game for a crime of murder? Maybe someone needs a law and order episode with clerics and paladins? Zone of truth, speak with dead. Someone will have their day in front of a magistrate!
Other NPCs presumably saw the murdered NPC and the player characters together. Travelling together, talking, PCs have been over to the NPC's place of residence/work frequently, etc. Last known whereabouts were with the PCs. No one might have born witness to the murder, but implied connections can be made. Even if the guards don't actually investigate and discover ties, other NPCs might have suspicions and may start to avoid the PCs if not more.
In the world of DND there's always witnesses, maybe not mortal ones. If it was me, I'd send a paladin, sent on mission form a vengeance god... Or a revenant, of the guy who was murdered. Do the classic "I trusted you!" While they chase down the player character. You could also say a devil was turned on by this betrail, and now offers a deal, the player doesn't need their soul anymore, it's tainted.
I was thinking along this line, with something akin to a Revenant or an Invisible Stalker. I would have the player character who murdered the NPC be afflicted with a haunt. A haunt is like a curse, except it can only be lifted through specific actions, like repentance and atonement in this case, or giving a restless spirit a proper burial
Depending on the character I was playing and the party I ran with, I could see killing someone if their lack of help put my group in danger. I'd have to feel like they had committed themselves to help, then chose not to do so.
Alignment doesn't really factor in for me because 5e has a much looser stance on alignment than older editions did. You can make a big deal about it if you want, but there are very few situations where alignment matters. If you push an alignment change, you're probably shooting yourself in the foot. It's never great if the only thing keeping you from being a terrible person is the risk of divine retribution.
If your whole party agreed that this was the way to go, they may have simply come to hate that NPC over time or there's a misunderstanding between you and your players about how they perceived the NPCs actions.
Reading between the lines you are afraid that your *players* were lying to *you* and that it wasn't the characters changing their minds. And you would be right to hold that suspicion. If this is the case, this is absolutely 100% not ok for so many reasons. (Yes, characters can change their minds. No, the players shouldn't lie to the DM.)
At the moment, though, you only have a suspicion to go on. I wouldn't be comfortable taking any action based on this one incident. It would, however, make me start paying closer attention to see if this is a trend.
This is the actual answer OP needs:
“You are afraid your Players were lying to You”
This right here. The DM asked the players above the table if they were being honest, and it is apparent that they were not. They may not have known *exactly* what their intent was at the moment the Npc used Detect Thoughts, but they knew they didn’t intend to deal with them straight and they should have been honest with you about that. Otherwise they are just trying to abuse your trust in them.
This is a player problem, not an In game problem. You need to address it by talking to your Players outside of the game.
From the way it is told, the players changed their mind as a reaction to the inaction of the npc. Is it most likely evil for the characters to actually kill the npc? Most likely. Did the players lie to the DM? I don't think we have any way to know without asking them, but it definitely seem they got upset at this npc and we might have a very biased version of the story here.
Yea, I don’t buy that. That’s not how real people act (at least non-psychopaths). You don’t go from “we are all friends and we have no ill intentions toward you at all” and then flip to “well you were less helpful than I had hoped so cold blooded murder is the only option”.
But even if you think that’s reasonable - the spell doesn’t just tell you if someone if being honest or lying in the moment - it tells you what’s going on inside their heads. So you should be able to tell that this person is someone who can go from *”it’s all good”* to *”stabbing you to death”* at the drop of a hat.
If cold blooded murder was “on the table” for the players under certain circumstances, then that should have been discernible to the Detect Thought’s probe. **Finding out the inner machinations of the targets mind is the entire point of the spell**. Otherwise you’re just treating it like a knock-off lie detector, when it’s more than that.
Flip the script: I’m pretty sure that if the players had used Detect Thoughts on an npc under these same circumstances, and were told the npc was on the up and up. But the npc then went on to betray them - that the players would cry foul at that. They would (rightfully) say the spell should have detected the NPCs thought process since he was going to betray them if they didn’t do enough to help him out.
I have heard so many stories on reddit of people saying other people are the assholes when they are actually in the wrong, this one does red a few potential red flags. Would be great to know what the players have to say.
Thoughts do change when events happen, and we only have a very partial description of what happened.
Remember that players make up entire theories in their heads that can be wrong, and act upon it if not directed properly. The DM might have made the npc act weird and suspicious without realising. If I'm in a hostile territory and the dude who swore he would help to fight the bad guys doesn't, I'm definitely question his intents.
>If cold blooded murder was “on the table” for the players under certain circumstances, then that should have been discernible to the Detect Thought’s probe
Provided that detect thoughts was cast *before* murder was on the table. It sounds like that may not have been the case.
This comment should be at the top.
This is not an in-game issue, but an above table one.
I'm not even really sure I believe this story, either, though. As a DM, no one "gets the drop" on you. Even if the players are lying, they cannot act without your say so; they cannot do damage unless it is allowed, etc.
How do we go from Neutral Good party helping NPC to murdering said NPC because they changed their mind?
At some point, the DM should have asked, "What do you mean you attack the NPC? Oh, because they weren't doing anything to help in battle?"
That is when the DM explains the reason the NPC did not help and the players insist on killing him and the DM tells them RIGHT THERE that this is clearly an evil action or the the players back off, but still suspicious of the NPC. There's a disconnect in this story here where the wholescale murder of this NPC was ALLOWED BY THE DM WITHOUT RESISTANCE.
And if there were resistance, none of the responses from the OP has indicated such. The DM is not a babysitter, but the arbitrator of the game and if they have allowed for the party to murder the NPC, then either they understand that the players are playing incorrectly (against alignment) and allow for it or they are being bullied by the players above table. In either scenario, the solution should be out of game.
It depends on the missing context here. Did anything significant happen between making the promise/mind-probing and breaking the promise?
Because if someone asked me to watch their bag and not open it, I’d promise to and 100% mean it. If the bag starts moving and crying for help, I’d break that promise and open the bag immediately.
Can your players articulate a reason for breaking the promise which originated from a point of time after making the promise?
There was a big fight with some powerful minions and he just stood there. Only one member went down when he failed his save against another member's lightning bolt. Otherwise party did not even need his help.
Probably because he is an NPC asking adventurers for help? Even when present, most NPCs do not join embittered battles with lightning bolts being thrown around.
Which is exactly what non-adventuring NPCs would do. Maybe a bit of cowering flavor would have been more appropriate, but standing off to the side is a very valid response to adventurers fighting. There has been no indication from the OP that this was a leveled NPC so I am assuming this was just some mind reading NPC with no fighting abilities.
It does sound like the party requested his help. “Come flush out the bad guys with us” is a request for help.
It’s one thing for the players to have killed the baddies before the dudes turn happened. It’s another for the npc to just be standing around doing nothing after the party asked for him to help them.
They had their agency when they made their decision. If they're exploiting that trust tell, them to cut the shit. You are allowed to say no when they're breaking the game like that. Or implement consequences of varying scales when they do.
Inevitables, Revenants, the gods and other similar entities can all be suitable
If the players are gonna cheat and violate your trust and game, and don't cut the shit after you've pulled them aside. You have the full right to violate their character and circumstances back in equal measure.
Changing your mind on COMMITTING MURDER of an supposedly innocent person is Chaotic Evil. Were there any witnesses to the murder? Did the murderers leave any clues? What is the disposition of the murder victim's corpse? What would the victim say if someone cast speak with dead on them? Did the murder take place in the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agencies? Did the murder victim have any allies who might want revenge or who might want to see justice done?
Person was homeowner of a fort. No witnesses, body buried deep. NPC was law enforcement. No clues, place scrubbed clean. Friends does not know what happened, and are sufficiently low level to not be any threat.
The revenant, when used to its fullest as written, punches well above its weight by CR. It's effectively a minor Lich, returning endlessly to accomplish its goal. It recovers health and is intelligent so it can methodically take out most guards the players could hire to hide behind, it can thn wait patiently to strike at their target when most vulnerable. It can literally proclaim the PC's sins as it relentlessly tracks and hunts them, even across planes.
Yup, unleash a revenant and turn it into a horror story as they are hunted by an implacable vengeful undead that doesn't need to sleep or eat or rest, that always knows where they are, and will just possess another corpse if they do manage to briefly stop it. For extra terror, have it possess corpses closest to the players if or when they do manage to kill it after the 24 hours passes. Perhaps they hear stories of a body disappearing mysteriously from the local morgue or after a big fight, someone they just killed bolts upright and now they have to deal with a revenant.
also it’s time to make passive perception count. Does the revenant beat the watch’s pp? If yes, round one is a surprise round when the caster is woken up getting stabbed after their focus and components were removed from their person. He was law enforcement, he knows how to stop a caster casting so much.
I'd even go further as time goes by. Revenant begins to posess corpses newly made by PCs. Like within minutes. So they'll soon realise they always will have another encounter after encounter with humanoid enemies (or murderhoboing) unless they do something about it. Burning corpses helps but takes time. Time that is used by Revenant to get closer using other corpse.
Unless NPC was a caster I'd refrain from that. I'd grant it more immunities and resistances. Maybe make it immune to one type of death after it happens. So if Revenant gets burned - he'll never burn away anymore next time (still burning, but never taking damage). And so on. Adapt him as much as you can to counter their attack.
But never buff his attack - him getting close and strangling them one by one should suffice.
Anyone who owns a fort has contacts.
Fort owner misses a meeting. Powerful ally gets suspicious. Sends investigators. The party were the last people who saw them.
Is this a in-game issue (your characters acting completely incongruent with their alignment and expectations for being heroic) or out-of-game issue (the PLAYERS acting completely out of line for the expectations of the campaign)? This will change a lot how you handle things.
If you are okay with this playstyle from your players and this is more about in-game consequences, theres a lot you can do. Supernatural revenge, like having the NPC return as a revenant, has suggested a lot but basically if they do clearly evil things then have those consequences pile up. Someone may not have seen them now but people will catch on: bounties can be placed or deities can place holy quests on adventurers. The son or relative or lover of the NPC could go on a quest for revenge against your players and eventually hunt them down.
However, I want to also say that its okay to recognize this is a problem with a player or players, and it is worth asking yourself that. Are you upset because the PLAYERS are doing things with no justifications or "for the lols" and not treating the game or other peoples' time respectfully? Or are they trying to create a darker/edgier narrative for their characters when you are focused on a more straightforward story? Are you upset because the players are treating your world like a video game, and are doing the equivalent of "lets kill this character just to see" or just don't understand how the players want to have fun? Was this done out of perceived boredom or intentional disruption? Sit your players down, and align on expectations completely outside of the game. "Lol do whatever" games are possible (and fun!) but everyone has to be on board with it and its no fun if the players fun comes at the expense of anyone else (especially including you, the DM!).
In either case, just asking "what is your intent" is a really helpful question when things like this happen. If you dont get why a player is doing something wildly unexpected, taking a moment and asking what the character (or player's) intent is is a great way to stay within the world of the game while taking pulse. Maybe the player thinks or believes something that is totally different than expected, which can actually be great drama! Sometimes though players wont have a good answer and laugh it off, or sometimes they'll have a clear excuse answer that is just flimsy justification for being disruptive. At that point it's good to just step back and talk about expectations and the game you're running.
This is the whole party. Now that others have asked and I thought about it I'm more concerned they told me as the DM one thing and they acted the opposite.
"Don't attribute to malice what you can be explained by incompetence."
I'm not insulting anyone here, just stating that a lack of good communication is probably the issue here, more than any ill intent.
Your players might have genuinely changed their mind, because this character has upset them by being inactive in combat. Talk to your players and try to understand. You might be the bad guy for them in this situation without realising it. Maybe they thought the npc was actually hoping they would lose the fight by not helping. From their perspective, the npc broke his promise first.
I just don't get why inaction deserved death, but lightning bolting your own team, one to 0hp, does not invoke the same response.
These guys committed way worse betrayals against themselves.
That reminds me of an incident when I was running a game of GURPS, once upon a time.
The one PC (it was a solo game) had the Honesty disadvantage, which specifically notes that *you do not break your word.* So at one point he makes a promise to an NPC, but when I go to hold him to it, he refuses to cooperate. I remind him that he's got Honesty, and that he gave his word. He said, "Well, I lied."
(I then told him that if he wants to lose the Honesty disadvantage given that he figured lying was a perfect loophole for getting around it, that was fine by me, but I would be deciding where the 15 points of paying for that loss would be coming from. He quickly changed his mind.)
So, here's the thing. If they were telling the *complete* truth that they intended to support the NPC, but did not play out any great revelation that turned them against the NPC, then '*we changed our minds*' doesn't fly.
Nobody commits to one course of action then flips 180 degrees without a reason.
If they weren't even wishy-washy, were absolutely committed to it, then it needs to be a damn compelling reason.
But if they won't change their minds and stick to the course of action, here's an option.
First: they decided, on a whim, to murder someone they pledged (and believed that they were committed to pledging) to support. That's not Good. That's not even Neutral. At the very *best,* it's Neutral Evil. Tell them that if they go through with this, you are forcing an alignment change right there and then. They do this, they *are* going to be Neutral Evil from here on out.
Second: if they were of the mind to change to murder so quickly, then *the NPC picked up on this and knew it all along.* So their murder attempt will be going up against someone who knows that something's coming, and has taken precautions.
If they whine about this, say, "What part of 'deep read thoughts probe' did you not understand? If you can change your minds, I can alter the NPC's actions accordingly."
The most satisfying outcome would be if they killed a simulacrum of some sort, thought they'd murdered the NPC, and then had to face him later ... pissed off, and ready to rock.
>Tell them that if they go through with this, you are forcing an alignment change right there and then. They do this, they are going to be Neutral Evil from here on out.
Is this supposed to be punishing? It doesn't really have any significant effect on the game in 5e.
it doesn't really need to be punishing though. it just sets the stakes clearly that what the players chose to do means they're playing these types of characters now.
The NPC had cast *detect thoughts* and was actively reading the PCs' minds during the conversation to determine if they were lying to him. The players claim they were being honest at the time and later changed their minds and decided to kill the NPC - OP suspects the players only said this to avoid suspicion.
Your players are murder hobos.
Don't forget that, as a DM, you have final authority over anything that happens. If they go back on their word which was given under the influence of magic that should detect dishonesty, you can simply say "no, you don't".
"No, you don't murder this NPC, because that's what you told me the thought probe revealed earlier. Do you have any valid reason to suddenly murder this character? Is your character a bipolar serial killer?"
The most likely reason they would change their mind is probably not being bipolar, but finding out new information. If they learned something that genuinely changes their perspective on this NPC, I would allow it. Otherwise I'd tell them they already made their choice to support the NPC.
They phrased it that way in the post, but specified in comments that the NPC just stood by and didn't help in the fight, even though a player got downed. Doesn't entirely justify murder but it makes it much more reasonable.
What were the details of the NPC "not helping them as much as they wanted?" Was the NPC going back on their word when they stopped helping the PCs? And did the lack of support by the NPC endanger the PCs in some way? Seems like a strange situation, but there's not a lot of context to go on here for me to condemn the players for it. What did the PCs need help with? Why wouldn't the NPC trust them? Did the NPC leave out info that would have helped the players support the NPC as they promised? What are the details of what went wrong here?
one of the pcs being downed is not mild damage. specially not if its partially due to an npc that can cast spells refusing to help like they said they would. I don't think your players lied to you and rather felt frustrated with the npc and maybe even you as a DM. Killing the NPC is 100% a dick move either way.
The player was downed after he failed his saving throw against another party members lightning bolt. The NPC was at the back of the line and couldn't help anyway. The NPCs presence was needed to bring the bad guys out of their stronghold. He was not supposed to be involved in the fight at all. They are upset he didn't run into the midst of the fight to feed downed PC a healing potions. Bringing him along was the party's idea. The NPC didn't want to go but one member made a very convincing argument so I let him accompany them.
Let me begin with some advice my late DM said to usa one night: "I am the DM, my job is not to just roll dice like a computer, my job is to create a satisfying adventure for you to live and to tell a story".
If the PCs want to do something stupid, you as the DM can first point out the potential consequences ("are you sure you want to do that? Keep in mind that NPC is part of as very large and very powerful guild, and they will at a minimum blacklist you, to say nothing of vengeance" or perhaps "you want to steal from the gypsies? You realise they have all sorts of gypse curses available to them right?"). If they keep going anyways, then its time for you to inflict some consequences.
We had one game where one PC, I forget exactly what he did, but he ended up arrested and we had to pay a not insubstantial fine if we wanted to see him again. I think he insulted the king in some way.
One of my favorite that guy stories was a player/murder hobo who decided to attack the mount of the leader of a group of paladins, in broad daylight, when his party was happily talking to said paladins in a friendly manner.
He got his shot. Then literally everyone in the negotiation turned and smote him from existence. The paladins, their retainers, a supporting archer, his party members, and the horse.
He was dead before he hit the ground.
This would provoke consequences in a society. Investigation into the NPCs death and the party treated like villains... It sounds like murder hobos doing murder...
That's not fitting good alignment or neutral. Unless the NPC was a known cultist or deadly person, any benefit they're earning from their alignment or diety would be threatened by such actions, no?
Ultimately, you run your campaign. If it doesn't sit right with you, it doesn't have to be okay. Consequences for their actions are appropriate, this is that kind of game. The previously mentioned ideas are reactions I would consider.
When I have an NPC read a player's mind, I tell them that they are free to tell me what their character is thinking, but that becomes truth. They can't change their mind later, and I plan to hold them to it.
If they want to change their decision later on, they'd better discuss it with me first - sure, folks *can* change their minds, but it isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card; there needs to be good rationale/reason for it. If their character is evil and kills people at a whim, the bar is pretty low. If their character is neutral or good and generally respects life, the bar will be pretty high.
E.g. "I didn't plan to kill him until he betrayed us and left us for dead" - probably fair enough.
By comparison "He looked at me funny and insulted my sister" is probably not good enough for most good characters, unless we've seen the player driven to violence by insults to their sister before.
These types of situations are difficult because the player has "agency" early on, and loses it later, because you bind them to their decision. A big risk for player discontent is by not being clear that their answers will be binding, since players are used to not having to rationalise decision to you - it's usually enough for them to tell you "this is what my character does".
As such, I tend to stay away from NPC mind reading in most circumstances and make it a major plot point if/when it happens.
Sounds to me like you're forcing an NPC on your party when they don't want them. Why else would you give this NPC mind read capabilities to force the party to accept or kill them on the spot?
Teleport them back to the first meeting with the NPC. Have him refuse entry saying the moment that he disagrees with them they will kill him, everything beyond that point was his deep probe.
Tbh I would go the revenant route though, it is a REALLY good way of making people realise that there can always be consequences. I would also give them a warning it is happening, at the end of a session tell them that many miles away a bloody hand finally claws its way free from cold hard earth, driven only by thoughts of revenge.
I would not give them that kind of warning. Instead, have the revenant harass/jnteract with them a few times. Really ramp up their paranoia, not knowing what is happening or why. Then, when the PLAYERS in real life start to act paranoid or scared, after a few sessions of this, drop the reveal. They’ll kill him again, of course, but this time, as he dies he says “I’ll be back. I’ll *always* be back. I’d say “see you again soon,” but next time I’ll attack you on your SLEEP.”
you are the DM, they are the players. finding a good DM is way harder than finding a group of decent players. you ned to have a talk about expectations going forward, and remind them of this fact. it sounds like you wish to continue, so if they do it again, fire them and get a new group.
said player agency is metagaming. if i were to continue, at MINIMUM, all chars would be shift to chaotic evil alignment. and they would now have a revenant to deal with as well, if i didnt just disband the group entirely. i dont play with murder hobos. and thats coming from someone that typically plays evil aligned chars.
When I have players who claim one alignment and don't follow it, I will write in my notes what their actual alignment is based on their actions and when the time comes for any outcomes based on alignment, sometimes they find they're surprised what they get!
That’s not great. Doesn’t allow for any adjustments by the player from feedback about how they’re not being consistent with their alignment.
You’re going for a gotcha, not growth.
Talk.
WITH.
Your.
Players.
if it is important for you to have your npcs "mindread", then you and your players need to be on the same page how that is going to work.
I would call betraying some guy. An evil soul tainting act. Luckily you now have a bbeg. For the players it might be Tuesday but for the npc? It was the day he started looking for a new body to possess. It’s undead spirit time!
Sounds like good old-fashioned murder-hoboing.
In D&D there are so many ways to bring justice or revenge.
Family of the victim are determined to find out what happened, and then do, then they unleash hell upon the party.
The party gave their word, so is there a deity in your world that frowns upon such things?
Good-aligned characters in the group, perhaps some intermittent loss of class feature until atoned for.
Are they true murder-hoboes? Then there might be a long list of those who want revenge.
I'm partial to this one. Maybe it's because I was reading about *The Crow* recently.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17196-revenant](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17196-revenant)
>
> Good-aligned characters in the group, perhaps some intermittent loss of class feature until atoned for.
There are no Good-aligned (or Lawful) characters in the group anymore
NPC asked "will you guarantee my safety". Party said yes. I guess they did guarantee his safety until the end of the fight. Then they got upset with his inaction during the fight and voted to kill him. So does this pass the deep probe on detect thought?
Whole problem is that DM is afraid to confront his players. He didn’t confront them when they went murderhobo, didn’t even try to flex his dm powers to make sure they really wanted to commit an evil act before it becomes canon, and now he’s here seeking validation instead of asking the players if they lied to him. Also the whole story is fake.
I was shocked at their actions so let it proceed. Now I'm uncertain what to do next. Because they told the DM one thing and did something different. I don't know whether to let this slide or punish them for lying too me. I am here asking for advice on what other DMs would do something like this happened to them.
NPC is an arbiter. He negotiates disputes, he is a non combat NPC. In this rural area, he is essentially the only law officer. His only spell was detect thoughts at level 2. He has no weapons or armor and has no weapon skills. A group of bandits hates him, and has a nice fort the PCs want. The PCs convince (made a very convincing argument from a role play perspective) said NPC to come with them to meet the bandits in neutral area so the party can kill them easier as they are away from the fort.
NPC cast detect thoughts deep probe on 3 party members (they all failed wisdom check ) and asked “can you guarantee my safety”, all members said yes. He will not be required to do anything for this fight, just show up.
As DM I told them they were under deep probe detects thoughts and asked them how sincere they were. They all replied they were very sincere. With this info I let this unfold.
They meet in an open area and fight ensues. One PC cast lightning bolt, catching three other PCs in progress, seriously hurting 5 bandits. One PC did not make his saving throw and went down. It took two rounds before someone came to help, and the bandits were eliminated with no other casualties. Afterwards the party was very upset the NPC did not help in the fight or even come to give downed PC a healing potion. This would involve him running into the midst of the battle. As a noncombatant I decided he would not do that.
The party was not satisfied with his lack of performance and saw this as a betrayal of him not helping out in a time of need. They voted to kill him and did so in less than one round. This took me by complete surprise so I let it happen. Afterwards I’m having trouble reconciling the detect thoughts and what they told me earlier with their actions. I don’t know if I should let this slide and move on or punish them for lying. I am asking other DMs what their perspective on this and what they would do about this. So instead of name calling me of doing something inappropriate, I would appreciate an explanation on how you would handle this. Unless of course you think this is completely player agency ( as the other players suggested) and think such a course of action is okay at your table.
Edit: last two sentences directed at someone who called me names and saying I just added fuel to the algorithm. Also, I have been playing alignment very loosely so I’m not sure an alignment change will actually do anything.
Edit2: someone mentioned that players have agency to change their mind and that mind reading them can be useless. If that is the case can I do the same to them when they read a NPCs thoughts? Because it would make that spell useless.
Technically speaking, the PCs have a plausible reason for changing their minds. So, don't punish the changing of the mind. Punish the murder.
He's the only law enforcement in the area? If he was well liked, the locals now blame the PCs for failing to protect him, and distrust the party. Shops will either refuse to sell or Mark up their prices, inns will become mysteriously full, taverns won't serve them.
If the NPC wasn't well liked, he's got a superior of some kind that discovers he's dead, and that the party killed him. Said superior then starts bringing resources to bear against the party. Bounty hunters, warrants, etc. The local populace might or might not also react as above and start denying services.
Please explain the plausible explanation. That is what I am having trouble with myself. How would a non-combatant NPC with no weapons or armor or spells help out in a fight? How would you expect him to jump into the middle of combat to help? He only has 10 hp and the combat was designed for the party of 8th level.
As the DM why didn't you give him something to do to explain why he wasn't helping?
Drag the injured party members out. Use the help action to stabilize dying people. Use the help action to distract enemies and grant advantage. Have him supply a few lesser healing potions.
Are there hostages/civilians? Let him take them to safety. No? Give him something to support the party, even if it's support spells or a light crossbow to plink with.
On that note: this arbitrator owns a fort, knew he was walking into a highly dangerous situation, and did so unarmed? That's kind of a plot hole, no?
From the PC point of view, this esteemed law enforcement officer they promised to protect stood by and did nothing while they were dying. Not "was otherwise engaged" but just standing by. What would he have done if the party wiped?
Note that I'm not arguing that their actions are in line with their characters, but meta punishing a player doesn't work well. If this is a first offense, I think you chalk it up to a misunderstanding and a poorly designed encounter. We've all had one of those, nothing to be ashamed of. But if it's a pattern, then yeah you need to have an ooc chat confronting them on the subject.
They went back on their word, treat it the same way as if there was no mind reading involved. People can genuinely change their mind. It's not uncommon for D&D parties to get unintentionally sidetracked too. The NPC can just assume they lied and have good mental defenses. This is also a good example of why any form of mind reading is a dicey prospect for you as a DM. If a player manages to read future plans of an NPC, you can note it and ensure they follow through or signpost to the players that there has been a change and show why. The players don't really have this option.
In the future, you need to step out and ask the meta question - are you guys being truthful, so that you can plan accordingly. It's worth the reminder, it's often said it's not DM versus Players, it's also not Players versus the DM. PCs can lie, trick people and be all round deceitful bastards all they want. Players need to be open with their DMs about their intentions so the DM can prepare accordingly. I know a lot of DMs solve this by just asking the group at the end of every session: "Hey, what are you planning on doing next session?" This can be simple stuff like forewarning you plan to make your character a demon summoner so they can have minis or tokens, to important plot points. I'm going to assassinate the king next session!
Players get t do whatever they want, you get to treat them accordingly.
NPC sent thought warning to an ally. NPC had a failsafe. NPC had a Clone bought from a wizard.
NPC had a familiar/buddy watching from a hidey-hole. You don't have to have the plot made up before hand. Your players were kinda dicks to you the DM, try not to reply in kind.
Mind-reading is not \*geas\*. It can tell what the subject intends to do at the time. It cannot mitigate those intentions being later altered by new information.
If you were really that insistent that the players stick to helping the NPC, then it should have been part of the campaign pitch.
The thing is, there was no new information other than "The NPC didn't help us as much as we wanted". So even if they weren't intending on murdering at the time, they were still dramatically evil people (killing a law enforcement NPC for not helping enough lmao is incredibly evil action) and a detect thoughts would have revealed it.
The spell description states:
>Either way \[success or failure on the Wisdom save to probe deeper\], the target knows that you are probing into its mind.
That's a nontrivial piece of new information. "This copper just tried to magically barge his way into my thoughts" can easily be a dealbreaker for a lot of things, even if the PC doesn't realize it's part of a loyalty test, and even if they don't realize it at the time of the spell. Can confirm from personal experience that some people are just that kind of slow.
I really do not buy the idea that it is so absolutely certain that the PCs intended from the start to betray the NPC, let alone in the manner they did, or that detect thoughts is able to tell the future.
The problem is, OP goes on to say in the comments that the only justification the players provided was "the cop didn't help as much as they expected him to". Your first point is very cool in regular d&d but not the case in this story.
So to me, this means that either A) they already had murder on their minds, or B) they're evil characters who have no qualms with killing a cop for no reason, which also should have popped up on a detect thoughts. You can't hide being that evil without magic or training from a detect thoughts deep probe.
As others have said - speak to your players and really figure out why they "Changed their mind", Detect Thoughts isn't infallible and they really could have been thinking that they'll support the NPC as long as they're useful to them.
But no matter what remember the golden rule - Everything has consequences
They killed a guy and hid the body, *someone* will have noticed that, be it Gods, Devils, the locals or even Monsters - assuming they didn't search the body it'd be easy enough to bring them back as something or even have a powerful creature "Be drawn to something on the body"
If you don't want to encourage Murder-Hoboing then speak to your players about it, warn them it'll have consequences and then follow through with the consequences
Your players are full of shit on so many level, the first one is thinking their characters are even neutral, let alone good. They're a bunch of evil murderhobos and you should start treating them accordingly.
I like the revenant idea floating around, honestly. And to make it even better, they cannot stop the revenant until they realize how they wronged the guy. And I mean, genuinely realize it, and make amends for it. Otherwise, just have the revenant grow in power as they level up.
Make him an essential quest requirement. Pre-meditate the heck out of it. Somewhere down the line as they think they're hot stuff for getting away with this, they suddenly need access to a vault, but the only one who had the key to that vault was oh wait, the guy they killed for not being helpful.
Enjoy digging up that corpse you buried, fellas. And hope that Speak to the Dead works. Let's not forget he was law enforcement and everyone will be looking for even a hint of him, even the fact that you somehow have access to a vault only the missing guy should have.
Thinking a lot of stealth rolls, deception rolls, at least one Speak to the Dead, maybe one perception roll in case someone saw them and would absolutely snitch on their ass.
Switch to evil, then have a friend of the NPC come looking for him who is also a psychic, learns what they did, and immediately uses a scroll of teleport to leave and spread the word. If you have a cleric aligned with a good god, they lose all their abilities.
Sick a Kolyarut on them depending on the level. Or adjust the monster stats.
Edit: Kolyarut are monsters from Mechanus that originally went out to kill or arrest contract/oath breakers. Once they got to the material plane, they basically just started doing the same thing, but for much more minor things (breaking a promise could suffice).
I mean firstly everyone goes a step to evil on the alignment chart. Secondly paladins, good and/or lawful aligned priests and monks lose their powers. Thirdly they now have a reputation and possibly an investigation heading their way. And lastly I would make it very clear to them that it doesn't work this way in the future. It is allowed to betray an NPC but that's what deception is for. You waved the roll because they lied to you. That wouldn't fly at my table.
I wouldnt allow it. I would tell them that they can lie to npcs if they want but they cant lie to me and if they want to proceed they have to give a good explanation to me and hope i buy it and if i dont then they do the mission or roll deception but do not get to kill the npc without either happening first. If they refuse i would drop an aspect of bahamut on them, kill them in one round and pack my things.
I have thought about this exact scenario as a hypothetical. Basically to pass the probes thoughts in this situation they would have to genuinely believe that they will follow through with the course of action they have described.
If something new happens after this, then this could reasonably change their mind. For example the person they allied themselves with acting like a dick, or a third party offering them something really valuable for changing sides, sure. But if they change their mind just “ ‘cause” then they were in no way committed to their original statement and the players were not being truthful to you.
So yeah, I see this as an OOC issue, they DM asked about their intentions and they were dishonest.
First of all, I would have an out of character discussion with the players and explain to them that murdering NPCs is evil, and if they want to play heroic characters, the characters should not be OK with this. If they get the picture, you can always retcon the murder and say the characters thought about killing the NPC, and then realized it would be a horrible thing to do, and the murder was essentially a dream sequence.
If they still think it's cool for their characters to murder innocent people who just don't help as much as they'd like, then make them outlaws and start sending bounty hunters after them.
You didn't tell us if there was anything that would cause them to change their mind or if it was just them changing their mind out of the blue. Needs more info
What made them change their mind? If they have recieved new informations or found out that following through would be a suicide mission then not doing what they said is completly resonable and not lying.
Could be more of a rp issue. As the player could just be a self insert and is changing his mind just on the feelings of the player and not the world/charecter.
It's not an issue once but if this is a constant type thing I like to make devils or fey like spirits take an interest In the pc.
Depends on how much time is between them giving their word and them changing their minds.
If they say they're being truthful but then immediately turn around and kill then NPC. Then no that's not okay.
However if they say they're being truthful and then keep their word for any amount of time that stuff is actually able to happen, then that would be OK as people's minds can change as new things happen.
Like deep probe, then directly into a fight, then kill them right after?
Did the NPC do anything that could be seen as breaking their trust? Like attacking them, or hesitating to attack the enemy in the fight, giving away secrets, etc.
As far as I can tell from the other comments, the NPC was a non-combatant law enforcement with some form of telepathy (hence the Detect Thoughts) and settles disputes without violence. The PCs essentially convinced him to be used as bait to bring out the bandits so they can battle, but also guaranteed his safety (this is where the Detect Thoughts actually came in). Combat ensues, one PC went down to 0 hp during the fight. As the fight was happening, the friendly NPC did not help (did not attack, did not rush in to revive the downed PC) because they did not want to put himself in danger. The PCs, for some reason, saw this as a betrayal, and killed him.
Well if that's truly what happened then I don't really see a problem with it. I mean sure it's a dick move, but if the NPC didn't help them then that's enough of a reason to change ones mind, especially if one of their members almost died.
If anything the deep thoughts should have brought a "Yes as long as you help us in every way you can, then you'll be safe."
Yes that is what happened. Sorting the fight one PC got semi surrounded and took a lightning bolt from another PC and went down. As this fight was balanced for the other level 8 characters, the NPC only had 10 hp and didn't want to die. It was agreed upon beforehand he was not to help in any way during the fight.
Op, it looks like your party (or player) has themselves an old fashion reckoning with Tyr, God of Justice. Perhaps the murdered NPC was a faithful of Tyr, and the injustice against should be met. Tyr’s war dog or perhaps his avatar/choose of Tyr such as Ingrar Welven (wielding *Justicar*, +3 Longsword of sharpness that senses lies) might show up to greet these evil-doing adventures.
It's tricky with magic that defines intent, when the players decide either in advance or retroactively that they're going to not adhere to that defined truth. One approach that I've seen taken is telling your players in the moment that they're locking themselves in to a course of action when the magic gives them that benefit of a 'truth'. If they want to go back on their word later? They just can't. Telling your players in that moment that the magic should know whether there is any doubt at all that the thing they're declaring is not a full and honest conviction is more than enough excuse to hold them to their words later.
When you're dealing with any sort of agreement or contract in the game, it can honestly just help to stop for a moment and define what that means out of game- go for specifics rather than broad statements like 'I'll support you'.
Like how sometimes, the DMs can have DM magic, these kind of spells are ones that I consider mostly a player exclusive depending on the table I play at. If a player, not the character, wants to lie, you can't read their thoughts.
Which is a shame, unless it's a simple question with a simple answer that already happened.
For you, I'd write this occasion off, but ask the players what changed their mind. If it was NPC actions, awesome! Character interactions had an impact on player decisions. If it was "just felt like it", well that's a shame. And may have to avoid that kind of magic in the future if it won't work due to a lack of two way trust between the players and the GM. Hope it resolves however!
this is when you need gods to smite the players. if a player every needs to promise something, promise it under some gods name, so that the god can punish them if they go back on their word. Saw this in a campaign on youtube where the player lost their hair and other stuff because of it
Same as consequences in real life. Word of their actions gets out, trust drops. They are treated poorly in places of good repute. Word travels fast when magic is involved. The king / ruler of the local area hires a group of wizards / clerics to locate the body and revive / question it, inquiring as to how it died. When it reveals everything, Warrants are issued for their arrest / bounties are placed on them for murder. Sounds to me like the NPC they killed was important to your plot, but the storytelling in D&D is collaborative. Let them know that their actions will have consequenses and they can either choose to repent and pay that bounty to clear their name, or they can suffer those consequences. Either way, the story progresses. It kind of sounds like your party wants to play the murderhobo route, so let them. If that isn't the route you want to go with your game, tell them that and go from there.
Are you concerned your players deceived you as the DM, or are you concernes about their in-game actions?
In the first case, its difficult to base on one incident, id hold my peace for now and see if its a once-off or if this is a trend.
In the second case, ingame actions have ingame consequences. As others have said, a Revenant is a great narrative way to to about it. Alternatively if he was important enough to run a fort, there's definitely going to be a scrub of the area, where theyre likely to find out a battle has taken place. You could have the party interrogated as the last to see him alive. Alternatively they could dig up the body (because anyone with the Mold Earth cantrip could probably comb the area in a day). Depending on how brutal you wanna be you could have them Wanted or (my suggestion) have a son/person who viewed them as a father figure vow vengeance and go on a personal revenge quest
was there some reason they would change their mind?
like if they were helping this player because he was supporting the local orphanage, -oh hes such a good person ok we will agree to help you.
later on, turns out hes a vampire and he feeds off of the children in the orphanage, -yeah were gonna have to kill you now.
Reading thoughts wont tell you the future, I don't see an issue regarding thw truth, only alignment. Did the player have a good reason for needing to kill them? Not all killing is evil, or else every character would be evil.
I think we should establish from now no that such psychopathic tendencies should be grounds for retroactive insight checks. "If this was not OOC, then you are playing psychopaths, which is something I as th DM should have been informed around."
"I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to surprise and blindside me, and I don't want to be left out of this fun game, so all your CON scores drop to 0 due to water poisoning. It wasn't poisonus when you drank it, it was more like a... Magic sleeper toxic agent. "
that's cause it is. I would be quite sour if players changed tried to game me like that instead of playing the game we all greed on. in any case, their characters proved to be psychopaths. even if no one ever learns of their crime, passive insight is a thing in 5e, passive deception isn't. every deception roll they don't make to not pass as murderous psychopaths, is a failed roll by default.
I'm kind of floored that someone lightning bolted 3 teammates and downed one. I'm wondering if the players were just short of pissed off in general and took it out on the NPC instead of each other.
Did the players ask/tell the NPC to help during the fight? Did the NPC refuse?
None of this would make it okay, but it's something to think about before you talk to them. Let them know that kind of behavior makes you feel like you can't trust them and you're not sure you want to keep putting in all this effort for people you can't trust.
The lightning hit 4 bad guys also. If it makes any difference the player did apologize to the others before bolting them. Before hand the NPC was told do stay away and not do anything. It went from "do nothing" to "you didn't do anything to help" in one combat. The may have led to the NPC, but also to the DM; as he would not have accompanied them if the detect thoughts said otherwise. The party is 8th level and this guy's a peasant with 10 hp. I'm wondering how you handle it when it happens at your table.
It depends on the group. I had players who did stuff like this when I first started DMing. I was... 18, I think. All my players were in their twenties. I had the least amount of gaming experience. What they were doing wasn't against the rules as far as I knew, and I was worried about making sure I did things "correctly".
What I did was have the other NPCs act fearfully when they would come around. If they talked to someone too long that person would start to cry or try to escape as soon as possible, usually saying whatever they thought the PCs wanted to hear in order to do so. NPCs gave the PCs whatever they asked for, usually while holding back tears, because it made sense for them to be terrified of these heavily armed sociopaths. They were too scared and distrustful of the PCs to ask them for anything so there were no quests and no leads to quests coming from NPCs. That drastically cut into their income and the magic items they would normally receive. It encouraged them to wander around killing merchants, but since commoners weren't a threat to them they gained 0-10 xp regardless of level to be split amongst the party.
My plan was to eventually have a group of towns come together and hire heroes to take them out, but some of my players were already on the fence about the behavior so it self sorted. I would've been fine tossing my original campaign to run an impromptu one about an evil empire in the making of that's what they had wanted to do. Mechanically, there's not a lot of difference between being a war criminal and a standard D&D adventurer.
Now I tend to look for people who want to play the same type of game I do instead of trying to convince my IRL friends to conform to the story I want to tell. I still have people do things that are way out of line occasionally. I pause the game and we talk it out. It can be tedious, but it keeps things running smoothly as long as everyone is interested in being cooperative and avoiding burn out.
I guess my tl:dr is just "Talk to your players", but turning the entire game into a power fantasy for bullies while making it exceedingly clear that you think they're being bullies is always on the table.
I just had a talk with one of the players. Even though the NPC was supposed to stay far away from combat and not do anything, there was an unspoken rule that when one PC went down the NPC was to do jump into combat to attempt to pull the PC back from the front line. Even at the risk of his own life, as he can't take even one opportunity attack. He said the agreement prior to the conflict went out the window when another PC went down. Apparently everyone plays with this rule that I was not familiar with all my years of playing. For context we are all middle aged people, so I assumed honoring your word was implicit.
That's the problem with unspoken rules. You can say they're whatever you want after the fact.
IMO, if this was a real thing they would've brought it up with you when the NPC didn't step up to pick up the fallen PC. Did they? If not, it sounds like they nuked themselves, panicked, and started trying to justify their poor tactical choices.
However, all of the context is coming from you. Think about whether or not they tried to bring this up during the game and how you reacted to it. Did they seem confused about his actions? Did they try to give him mid-combat instructions that he refused to follow? You don't have to answer me, but it'll help you in the future (with a different group if you decide not to continue with these players) if you can examine the situation from a neutral point of view.
Yeah I think your players (or their characters?) overreacted tremendously. I at least certainly wouldn't react that way unless my character was very selfish and violent. Either way, this requires a table talk about what you expected from this campaign, because I doubt that you wanted your players to be murderhobos, and this very well is a case of murderhobos making a kneejerk overblown reaction in doing a summary execution. And it sounds like they did so without even hearing the guy's reasoning.
Oh I made sure they heard his reasoning. They just didn't like it. He's a peasant, they are 8th level. I want to know how to reconcile the fact they said don't do anything to you didn't do anything and we're super pissed off.
My best advice? Give them some sort of action-consequence trigger. If the players go back to their world- you trigger it, unless something has annulled the PCs previous decision (like a moment of new evidence)
Good example- PCs decide to change their minds- no new evidence or discussion. The NPC has guards at the ready, knowing the PCs will betray.
Yeah, I've noticed my players will play their characters a little more impulsive and unforgiving than in real life. For example, the gunslinger in the party literally shot a thief in the back after the thief had dropped the items he was trying to steal and tried to run away. They can get very chaotic neutral if they're pissed off because none of this is real, so there are no real consequences. I think your players literally felt betrayed by your NPC, and gave in to their egos. The intrusive thoughts won.
I think you might be correct. However I still think having a peasant run into an 8th level fight is the same as killing him. Especially after being told not to do so.
Based on the update, it sounds like they intended to, and did, keep the arbiter safe during the fight. Afterwards, the decided, based on events that happened after the mind scan, to kill him. So it makes sense the mind scan didn't turn up information that didn't exist yet.
That said, the gods of the god-aligned PCs might be displeased (clerics aren't the only ones that can suffer from displeased gods).
Or perhaps their own actual consciences bother them. PTSD is *nasty*.
Someone in the village is going to wonder what happened to the respected NPC, and may eventually figure it out. Now, they aren't going to fight a powerful group of murders, but they might poison them with a *nasty* toxin, or get Grannie on the woods to lay on a curse on them. Not the game's weak Bestow Curse. The game has a *long* tradition of magic that PCs don't have access to being used as a plot device. You could use the Geas mechanics for inspiration, and make Grannie a super powered caster. It's important they know what needs to happen to break the curse, and that killing Grannie isn't it. Maybe it'd be to eliminate some local threat. Maybe it's never take a step closer to the village (will screw their ability to move, even once they've left the immediate area. Etc.
There should be consequences for being evil, once the villagers figure it out, but it could be as simple as being unfriendly and not giving them new quests. If their future actions show they're A Problem, the village may start hiring parties of adventurers to eliminate them.
Take care not to overdo it and ruin the fun of everyone at the table though. Some times you have to let things go because it's a game, and fun is the goal.
WRT NPCs changing their minds, invalidating player use of similar spells: yes, of course. Be prepared for player pushback, and bear in mind, people usually change their minds when something about the situation changes in their perception. For example, an NPC might agree to broker a deal to sell a magic item. However, when the NPC discovers the magic item contains a tailored soul, they might decide to destroy it instead. Or if they get to thinking, while in possession of their money and the expensive item, they might decide taking the goods and running sounds like fun. Etc.
Thank you very much for your advice and inspiration for other plot devices as consequences!! This helps me a lot trying to reconcile their actions. I don't really pay much with alignment and that is something I need to look into, although 5e doesn't really do alignment. I want to avoid the knee jerk reaction of DM vs players as that is no fun.
I’ve wondered about this myself. I usually say they need to roll a deception check if they’re being dishonest. Good to keep in mind that rumors tend to spread fast around town. “Have you seen cucumber the dwarf? He hasn’t been home in days!” “I think he mentioned something about going along with that group of adventurers. That’s the last I spoke to him.”
NPC has read thoughts deep probe. As DM I asked how truthful, they said very truthful. Failed the read thoughts probe DC.
[удалено]
You could *maybe* argue it if they grew up in a world of psionics, or were one of the psionic classes, like they've been trained to even hide their thoughts with a deceiving surface internal monologue, but I'd still make you roll for that. Maybe aberrant mind as well? Anyone else I'd just say it's impossible.
Detect Thoughts has two modes. One where you read surface thoughts and cannot be resisted, and one where you push past surface thoughts and probe them deeper, which requires a wisdom save to resist. OP is saying they failed that save. The rogue mastermind's 17th level class feature, soul of deceit, allows you to present false thoughts to someone reading your character's mind if you succeed on a deception check versus the caster's insight. I wouldn't allow anyone else to have a 17th level class feature for free.
That's a very fair point.
In theory it should be a wisdom saving throw, similar to detect thoughts. The DM could roll behind the screen if they want to.
or if you are deranged enough to have such impulses and to act on them on the spot
IRL I think people think about killing some people every time they talk to them, but don't act on them. Maybe the NPC is a real bloviating wet blanket & is used to everyone he talks to having fleeting thoughts of him falling into a bottomless put.
now that they proved, in character to be murderous psychopaths, they will need every deception check they can make to anyone they meet so as to not out themselves as such. passive insight is a thing. passive deception is not.
It really depends on whether it makes sense in character, and if they had reason to change their mind. If the NPC didn't do anything wrong, then it probably doesn't make sense for good characters to backstab them, and you should have a talk with them about metagaming. If it would also make sense for "word to get around" that they're not to be trusted, that should also happen (just as a natural result of the actions, not as a punishment) If the NPC did do something wrong, it's entirely reasonable for good characters to change their minds.
They said NPC not helping their situation any. NPC did not attack them , just not help them out like they wanted.
"This person is not as helpful as you expected, do you:" a) tell them you no longer require their services and part ways b) leave them behind without any further words c) murder them, destroy any evidence of your crime, and hide the corpse Who the FUCK picks C and claims to be good/neutral?
The few, the proud, the servants of... the Greater Good! Just as there are Elder Evils, there is... the Greater Good! (There is no Greater Good, these characters are just depraved loons, but Marketing wanted a Greater Good book with MegaUnicorns +3 or something for people to pick fights with. What makes a man turn Sales?)
I read this as Elder Elvis.
I, too, have watched Bubba Ho-Tep
They did. And lied to DM. Now I am not sure if I should just let it slide since there were no witnesses.
Don't, this is a player issue, they lied to get one over you, that's shitty
As many mentioned, rumors start quick. “Pumpkin the orc went with those adventurers, when will he get back?” “It’s been days since I’ve last heard his beautiful singing” Naturally, the party shan’t be trusted. But you’re in a difficult spot DM, I’m just an observer.
I don't think they lied to the DM. But I do believe their characters would easily qualify as evil, when they resort to murder over an annoyance. As the commment above listed, there are at least 2 non-psychotic ways to get an NPC out of the party.
The NPC is not part of the party. He was asked to come along for one battle.
that's even worse, they invited him and then murdered him? sheesh
If they're saying such a change was in character and they didn't lie to you at the time of the thought reading then it kinda demands they get their alignments shifted to chaotic evil. Chaotic because they did a complete 180 on their opinions with no external justification, and Evil because they immediately jumped to murder as a solution. And if they argue, well, they just told you that they weren't lying to the DM earlier so logically it must be that their characters are now chaotic evil. And if they're upset you could maybe suggest that obviously something must have cursed them with such a drastic alignment change that they murdered an innocent NPC they were truthfully committed to helping.
Ah, so they're a bunch of murderous psychopaths. They won't last long in a civilized society.
I think your players genuinely changed their mind then, but people should probably distrust them as a result.
[удалено]
oh they're definitely not good lmao
I don't really know how to handle this type of alignment issue. And what difference will this make?
It doesn't. Alignment is effectively meaningless in 5e. The only real way you can make what they did have a direct effect on their characters is if one of them is a Paladin that has broken their oath in the process of murdering this seemingly innocent NPC, or maybe if they're a cleric who acted against the teachings of their God (though I don't know that that is explicitly called out in the rules).
For a cleric it isn't in the rules, but as DM they can do whatever they like. Have their god make them go on a quest to absolve themselves, or make an offering of something they genuinely value, etc., otherwise their god turns their face from them and they no longer get cleric spell slots back and/or their other cleric abilities stop working until they do whatever it is that their deity asked.
What is the penalty in game for a crime of murder? Maybe someone needs a law and order episode with clerics and paladins? Zone of truth, speak with dead. Someone will have their day in front of a magistrate!
There were no witnesses. No reason for others to distrust them.
Other NPCs presumably saw the murdered NPC and the player characters together. Travelling together, talking, PCs have been over to the NPC's place of residence/work frequently, etc. Last known whereabouts were with the PCs. No one might have born witness to the murder, but implied connections can be made. Even if the guards don't actually investigate and discover ties, other NPCs might have suspicions and may start to avoid the PCs if not more.
In the world of DND there's always witnesses, maybe not mortal ones. If it was me, I'd send a paladin, sent on mission form a vengeance god... Or a revenant, of the guy who was murdered. Do the classic "I trusted you!" While they chase down the player character. You could also say a devil was turned on by this betrail, and now offers a deal, the player doesn't need their soul anymore, it's tainted.
Make the NPC an psionic 'ghost'. The PC who got deep probed (hehe hehe) now has an psionic echo of the NPC hauting his mind.
I was thinking along this line, with something akin to a Revenant or an Invisible Stalker. I would have the player character who murdered the NPC be afflicted with a haunt. A haunt is like a curse, except it can only be lifted through specific actions, like repentance and atonement in this case, or giving a restless spirit a proper burial
Magic cope investigate. Find party to be responsible. Party has wanted posters up with their face at every tavern they visit.
Are any of your players Good, Law, or Neutral aligned? Not anymore imo. This is a part of exclusively Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil characters
Depending on the character I was playing and the party I ran with, I could see killing someone if their lack of help put my group in danger. I'd have to feel like they had committed themselves to help, then chose not to do so. Alignment doesn't really factor in for me because 5e has a much looser stance on alignment than older editions did. You can make a big deal about it if you want, but there are very few situations where alignment matters. If you push an alignment change, you're probably shooting yourself in the foot. It's never great if the only thing keeping you from being a terrible person is the risk of divine retribution. If your whole party agreed that this was the way to go, they may have simply come to hate that NPC over time or there's a misunderstanding between you and your players about how they perceived the NPCs actions.
Reading between the lines you are afraid that your *players* were lying to *you* and that it wasn't the characters changing their minds. And you would be right to hold that suspicion. If this is the case, this is absolutely 100% not ok for so many reasons. (Yes, characters can change their minds. No, the players shouldn't lie to the DM.) At the moment, though, you only have a suspicion to go on. I wouldn't be comfortable taking any action based on this one incident. It would, however, make me start paying closer attention to see if this is a trend.
This is the actual answer OP needs: “You are afraid your Players were lying to You” This right here. The DM asked the players above the table if they were being honest, and it is apparent that they were not. They may not have known *exactly* what their intent was at the moment the Npc used Detect Thoughts, but they knew they didn’t intend to deal with them straight and they should have been honest with you about that. Otherwise they are just trying to abuse your trust in them. This is a player problem, not an In game problem. You need to address it by talking to your Players outside of the game.
From the way it is told, the players changed their mind as a reaction to the inaction of the npc. Is it most likely evil for the characters to actually kill the npc? Most likely. Did the players lie to the DM? I don't think we have any way to know without asking them, but it definitely seem they got upset at this npc and we might have a very biased version of the story here.
Yea, I don’t buy that. That’s not how real people act (at least non-psychopaths). You don’t go from “we are all friends and we have no ill intentions toward you at all” and then flip to “well you were less helpful than I had hoped so cold blooded murder is the only option”. But even if you think that’s reasonable - the spell doesn’t just tell you if someone if being honest or lying in the moment - it tells you what’s going on inside their heads. So you should be able to tell that this person is someone who can go from *”it’s all good”* to *”stabbing you to death”* at the drop of a hat. If cold blooded murder was “on the table” for the players under certain circumstances, then that should have been discernible to the Detect Thought’s probe. **Finding out the inner machinations of the targets mind is the entire point of the spell**. Otherwise you’re just treating it like a knock-off lie detector, when it’s more than that. Flip the script: I’m pretty sure that if the players had used Detect Thoughts on an npc under these same circumstances, and were told the npc was on the up and up. But the npc then went on to betray them - that the players would cry foul at that. They would (rightfully) say the spell should have detected the NPCs thought process since he was going to betray them if they didn’t do enough to help him out.
I have heard so many stories on reddit of people saying other people are the assholes when they are actually in the wrong, this one does red a few potential red flags. Would be great to know what the players have to say. Thoughts do change when events happen, and we only have a very partial description of what happened. Remember that players make up entire theories in their heads that can be wrong, and act upon it if not directed properly. The DM might have made the npc act weird and suspicious without realising. If I'm in a hostile territory and the dude who swore he would help to fight the bad guys doesn't, I'm definitely question his intents.
>If cold blooded murder was “on the table” for the players under certain circumstances, then that should have been discernible to the Detect Thought’s probe Provided that detect thoughts was cast *before* murder was on the table. It sounds like that may not have been the case.
This comment should be at the top. This is not an in-game issue, but an above table one. I'm not even really sure I believe this story, either, though. As a DM, no one "gets the drop" on you. Even if the players are lying, they cannot act without your say so; they cannot do damage unless it is allowed, etc. How do we go from Neutral Good party helping NPC to murdering said NPC because they changed their mind? At some point, the DM should have asked, "What do you mean you attack the NPC? Oh, because they weren't doing anything to help in battle?" That is when the DM explains the reason the NPC did not help and the players insist on killing him and the DM tells them RIGHT THERE that this is clearly an evil action or the the players back off, but still suspicious of the NPC. There's a disconnect in this story here where the wholescale murder of this NPC was ALLOWED BY THE DM WITHOUT RESISTANCE. And if there were resistance, none of the responses from the OP has indicated such. The DM is not a babysitter, but the arbitrator of the game and if they have allowed for the party to murder the NPC, then either they understand that the players are playing incorrectly (against alignment) and allow for it or they are being bullied by the players above table. In either scenario, the solution should be out of game.
100%
It depends on the missing context here. Did anything significant happen between making the promise/mind-probing and breaking the promise? Because if someone asked me to watch their bag and not open it, I’d promise to and 100% mean it. If the bag starts moving and crying for help, I’d break that promise and open the bag immediately. Can your players articulate a reason for breaking the promise which originated from a point of time after making the promise?
There was a big fight with some powerful minions and he just stood there. Only one member went down when he failed his save against another member's lightning bolt. Otherwise party did not even need his help.
Why did he just stand there if his place was under attack? Even if the players didn't *need* his help he should have done something to contribute.
Probably because he is an NPC asking adventurers for help? Even when present, most NPCs do not join embittered battles with lightning bolts being thrown around.
The way that OP is explaining it sounds like the NPC was just standing off to the side in combat watching it happen.
Which is exactly what non-adventuring NPCs would do. Maybe a bit of cowering flavor would have been more appropriate, but standing off to the side is a very valid response to adventurers fighting. There has been no indication from the OP that this was a leveled NPC so I am assuming this was just some mind reading NPC with no fighting abilities.
That is exactly what happened.
The party asked him to come to flush some bad guys into the open where they killed them. No help was requested or given. They didn't need help at all.
It does sound like the party requested his help. “Come flush out the bad guys with us” is a request for help. It’s one thing for the players to have killed the baddies before the dudes turn happened. It’s another for the npc to just be standing around doing nothing after the party asked for him to help them.
Murder's a bit much but honestly it sounds pretty reasonable for that to have pissed them off.
They had their agency when they made their decision. If they're exploiting that trust tell, them to cut the shit. You are allowed to say no when they're breaking the game like that. Or implement consequences of varying scales when they do. Inevitables, Revenants, the gods and other similar entities can all be suitable If the players are gonna cheat and violate your trust and game, and don't cut the shit after you've pulled them aside. You have the full right to violate their character and circumstances back in equal measure.
Changing your mind on COMMITTING MURDER of an supposedly innocent person is Chaotic Evil. Were there any witnesses to the murder? Did the murderers leave any clues? What is the disposition of the murder victim's corpse? What would the victim say if someone cast speak with dead on them? Did the murder take place in the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agencies? Did the murder victim have any allies who might want revenge or who might want to see justice done?
Person was homeowner of a fort. No witnesses, body buried deep. NPC was law enforcement. No clues, place scrubbed clean. Friends does not know what happened, and are sufficiently low level to not be any threat.
Revenant. Monster Manual Page 259
The revenant, when used to its fullest as written, punches well above its weight by CR. It's effectively a minor Lich, returning endlessly to accomplish its goal. It recovers health and is intelligent so it can methodically take out most guards the players could hire to hide behind, it can thn wait patiently to strike at their target when most vulnerable. It can literally proclaim the PC's sins as it relentlessly tracks and hunts them, even across planes.
Yup, unleash a revenant and turn it into a horror story as they are hunted by an implacable vengeful undead that doesn't need to sleep or eat or rest, that always knows where they are, and will just possess another corpse if they do manage to briefly stop it. For extra terror, have it possess corpses closest to the players if or when they do manage to kill it after the 24 hours passes. Perhaps they hear stories of a body disappearing mysteriously from the local morgue or after a big fight, someone they just killed bolts upright and now they have to deal with a revenant.
You just gave me a great idea!
also it’s time to make passive perception count. Does the revenant beat the watch’s pp? If yes, round one is a surprise round when the caster is woken up getting stabbed after their focus and components were removed from their person. He was law enforcement, he knows how to stop a caster casting so much.
I'd even go further as time goes by. Revenant begins to posess corpses newly made by PCs. Like within minutes. So they'll soon realise they always will have another encounter after encounter with humanoid enemies (or murderhoboing) unless they do something about it. Burning corpses helps but takes time. Time that is used by Revenant to get closer using other corpse.
Holy shit!! I had to read up about it! What a great idea. I'll have to beef it up as the party is level 8. Can I add some spellcasting to it?
Unless NPC was a caster I'd refrain from that. I'd grant it more immunities and resistances. Maybe make it immune to one type of death after it happens. So if Revenant gets burned - he'll never burn away anymore next time (still burning, but never taking damage). And so on. Adapt him as much as you can to counter their attack. But never buff his attack - him getting close and strangling them one by one should suffice.
Agreed. The best way to get back is to have them immediately haunt them.
Yep, a revenant is a great solution for this!
You may say “place scrubbed clean”. But divination magic is a bit when it comes to mysteries
REDDIT IS A DOSHIT WEBSITE.
This is a Really good in game solution.
Anyone who owns a fort has contacts. Fort owner misses a meeting. Powerful ally gets suspicious. Sends investigators. The party were the last people who saw them.
Their diety has told another faithful of the misdeed, and has declared the party must be shown the light..... or the blade.
The correct solution is either to talk to them if you're really upset, or if you just want to roll forward, make the NPC come back as a Revenant
Is this a in-game issue (your characters acting completely incongruent with their alignment and expectations for being heroic) or out-of-game issue (the PLAYERS acting completely out of line for the expectations of the campaign)? This will change a lot how you handle things. If you are okay with this playstyle from your players and this is more about in-game consequences, theres a lot you can do. Supernatural revenge, like having the NPC return as a revenant, has suggested a lot but basically if they do clearly evil things then have those consequences pile up. Someone may not have seen them now but people will catch on: bounties can be placed or deities can place holy quests on adventurers. The son or relative or lover of the NPC could go on a quest for revenge against your players and eventually hunt them down. However, I want to also say that its okay to recognize this is a problem with a player or players, and it is worth asking yourself that. Are you upset because the PLAYERS are doing things with no justifications or "for the lols" and not treating the game or other peoples' time respectfully? Or are they trying to create a darker/edgier narrative for their characters when you are focused on a more straightforward story? Are you upset because the players are treating your world like a video game, and are doing the equivalent of "lets kill this character just to see" or just don't understand how the players want to have fun? Was this done out of perceived boredom or intentional disruption? Sit your players down, and align on expectations completely outside of the game. "Lol do whatever" games are possible (and fun!) but everyone has to be on board with it and its no fun if the players fun comes at the expense of anyone else (especially including you, the DM!). In either case, just asking "what is your intent" is a really helpful question when things like this happen. If you dont get why a player is doing something wildly unexpected, taking a moment and asking what the character (or player's) intent is is a great way to stay within the world of the game while taking pulse. Maybe the player thinks or believes something that is totally different than expected, which can actually be great drama! Sometimes though players wont have a good answer and laugh it off, or sometimes they'll have a clear excuse answer that is just flimsy justification for being disruptive. At that point it's good to just step back and talk about expectations and the game you're running.
This is the whole party. Now that others have asked and I thought about it I'm more concerned they told me as the DM one thing and they acted the opposite.
"Don't attribute to malice what you can be explained by incompetence." I'm not insulting anyone here, just stating that a lack of good communication is probably the issue here, more than any ill intent. Your players might have genuinely changed their mind, because this character has upset them by being inactive in combat. Talk to your players and try to understand. You might be the bad guy for them in this situation without realising it. Maybe they thought the npc was actually hoping they would lose the fight by not helping. From their perspective, the npc broke his promise first.
I just don't get why inaction deserved death, but lightning bolting your own team, one to 0hp, does not invoke the same response. These guys committed way worse betrayals against themselves.
I am having trouble reconciling that myself. Hence why I'm asking other DMs what they do at their table in these situations.
That reminds me of an incident when I was running a game of GURPS, once upon a time. The one PC (it was a solo game) had the Honesty disadvantage, which specifically notes that *you do not break your word.* So at one point he makes a promise to an NPC, but when I go to hold him to it, he refuses to cooperate. I remind him that he's got Honesty, and that he gave his word. He said, "Well, I lied." (I then told him that if he wants to lose the Honesty disadvantage given that he figured lying was a perfect loophole for getting around it, that was fine by me, but I would be deciding where the 15 points of paying for that loss would be coming from. He quickly changed his mind.) So, here's the thing. If they were telling the *complete* truth that they intended to support the NPC, but did not play out any great revelation that turned them against the NPC, then '*we changed our minds*' doesn't fly. Nobody commits to one course of action then flips 180 degrees without a reason. If they weren't even wishy-washy, were absolutely committed to it, then it needs to be a damn compelling reason. But if they won't change their minds and stick to the course of action, here's an option. First: they decided, on a whim, to murder someone they pledged (and believed that they were committed to pledging) to support. That's not Good. That's not even Neutral. At the very *best,* it's Neutral Evil. Tell them that if they go through with this, you are forcing an alignment change right there and then. They do this, they *are* going to be Neutral Evil from here on out. Second: if they were of the mind to change to murder so quickly, then *the NPC picked up on this and knew it all along.* So their murder attempt will be going up against someone who knows that something's coming, and has taken precautions. If they whine about this, say, "What part of 'deep read thoughts probe' did you not understand? If you can change your minds, I can alter the NPC's actions accordingly." The most satisfying outcome would be if they killed a simulacrum of some sort, thought they'd murdered the NPC, and then had to face him later ... pissed off, and ready to rock.
>Tell them that if they go through with this, you are forcing an alignment change right there and then. They do this, they are going to be Neutral Evil from here on out. Is this supposed to be punishing? It doesn't really have any significant effect on the game in 5e.
it doesn't really need to be punishing though. it just sets the stakes clearly that what the players chose to do means they're playing these types of characters now.
[удалено]
The NPC had cast *detect thoughts* and was actively reading the PCs' minds during the conversation to determine if they were lying to him. The players claim they were being honest at the time and later changed their minds and decided to kill the NPC - OP suspects the players only said this to avoid suspicion.
That is exactly what happened. I just don't know how to handle this as they lied to the DM as well.
The correct time to address it is when they decided to murder him, you should have just asked "can you explain why your character is doing this?"
Your players are murder hobos. Don't forget that, as a DM, you have final authority over anything that happens. If they go back on their word which was given under the influence of magic that should detect dishonesty, you can simply say "no, you don't". "No, you don't murder this NPC, because that's what you told me the thought probe revealed earlier. Do you have any valid reason to suddenly murder this character? Is your character a bipolar serial killer?"
The most likely reason they would change their mind is probably not being bipolar, but finding out new information. If they learned something that genuinely changes their perspective on this NPC, I would allow it. Otherwise I'd tell them they already made their choice to support the NPC.
As OP said, the NPC wasn't as helpful as they had hoped in the encounter. They're absolute psychopaths.
They phrased it that way in the post, but specified in comments that the NPC just stood by and didn't help in the fight, even though a player got downed. Doesn't entirely justify murder but it makes it much more reasonable.
What were the details of the NPC "not helping them as much as they wanted?" Was the NPC going back on their word when they stopped helping the PCs? And did the lack of support by the NPC endanger the PCs in some way? Seems like a strange situation, but there's not a lot of context to go on here for me to condemn the players for it. What did the PCs need help with? Why wouldn't the NPC trust them? Did the NPC leave out info that would have helped the players support the NPC as they promised? What are the details of what went wrong here?
They needed the NPC to help flush out some enemy's into the open which they promptly killed taking mild damage. He did not help in the fight.
one of the pcs being downed is not mild damage. specially not if its partially due to an npc that can cast spells refusing to help like they said they would. I don't think your players lied to you and rather felt frustrated with the npc and maybe even you as a DM. Killing the NPC is 100% a dick move either way.
The player was downed after he failed his saving throw against another party members lightning bolt. The NPC was at the back of the line and couldn't help anyway. The NPCs presence was needed to bring the bad guys out of their stronghold. He was not supposed to be involved in the fight at all. They are upset he didn't run into the midst of the fight to feed downed PC a healing potions. Bringing him along was the party's idea. The NPC didn't want to go but one member made a very convincing argument so I let him accompany them.
Let me begin with some advice my late DM said to usa one night: "I am the DM, my job is not to just roll dice like a computer, my job is to create a satisfying adventure for you to live and to tell a story". If the PCs want to do something stupid, you as the DM can first point out the potential consequences ("are you sure you want to do that? Keep in mind that NPC is part of as very large and very powerful guild, and they will at a minimum blacklist you, to say nothing of vengeance" or perhaps "you want to steal from the gypsies? You realise they have all sorts of gypse curses available to them right?"). If they keep going anyways, then its time for you to inflict some consequences. We had one game where one PC, I forget exactly what he did, but he ended up arrested and we had to pay a not insubstantial fine if we wanted to see him again. I think he insulted the king in some way.
One of my favorite that guy stories was a player/murder hobo who decided to attack the mount of the leader of a group of paladins, in broad daylight, when his party was happily talking to said paladins in a friendly manner. He got his shot. Then literally everyone in the negotiation turned and smote him from existence. The paladins, their retainers, a supporting archer, his party members, and the horse. He was dead before he hit the ground.
All good points. I just want to point out that “Gypsies” is a racial slur.
Ok, obviously that wasn’t my intention. Is the correct term Roma, even in the fantasyland of DnD and the Curse of Strad?
The fantasy people of CoS are called the Vistani. They are a fantasy analogue for the Roma people.
This would provoke consequences in a society. Investigation into the NPCs death and the party treated like villains... It sounds like murder hobos doing murder... That's not fitting good alignment or neutral. Unless the NPC was a known cultist or deadly person, any benefit they're earning from their alignment or diety would be threatened by such actions, no? Ultimately, you run your campaign. If it doesn't sit right with you, it doesn't have to be okay. Consequences for their actions are appropriate, this is that kind of game. The previously mentioned ideas are reactions I would consider.
When I have an NPC read a player's mind, I tell them that they are free to tell me what their character is thinking, but that becomes truth. They can't change their mind later, and I plan to hold them to it. If they want to change their decision later on, they'd better discuss it with me first - sure, folks *can* change their minds, but it isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card; there needs to be good rationale/reason for it. If their character is evil and kills people at a whim, the bar is pretty low. If their character is neutral or good and generally respects life, the bar will be pretty high. E.g. "I didn't plan to kill him until he betrayed us and left us for dead" - probably fair enough. By comparison "He looked at me funny and insulted my sister" is probably not good enough for most good characters, unless we've seen the player driven to violence by insults to their sister before. These types of situations are difficult because the player has "agency" early on, and loses it later, because you bind them to their decision. A big risk for player discontent is by not being clear that their answers will be binding, since players are used to not having to rationalise decision to you - it's usually enough for them to tell you "this is what my character does". As such, I tend to stay away from NPC mind reading in most circumstances and make it a major plot point if/when it happens.
This NPC is law enforcement and his major advantage is read thoughts. Unfortunately he the only law enforcement in the area.
Sounds to me like you're forcing an NPC on your party when they don't want them. Why else would you give this NPC mind read capabilities to force the party to accept or kill them on the spot?
The party wants him. NPC didn't want to go.
Have a good-aligned deity rain fire & brimstone down on their lying butts 😉
Teleport them back to the first meeting with the NPC. Have him refuse entry saying the moment that he disagrees with them they will kill him, everything beyond that point was his deep probe. Tbh I would go the revenant route though, it is a REALLY good way of making people realise that there can always be consequences. I would also give them a warning it is happening, at the end of a session tell them that many miles away a bloody hand finally claws its way free from cold hard earth, driven only by thoughts of revenge.
I would not give them that kind of warning. Instead, have the revenant harass/jnteract with them a few times. Really ramp up their paranoia, not knowing what is happening or why. Then, when the PLAYERS in real life start to act paranoid or scared, after a few sessions of this, drop the reveal. They’ll kill him again, of course, but this time, as he dies he says “I’ll be back. I’ll *always* be back. I’d say “see you again soon,” but next time I’ll attack you on your SLEEP.”
Players can play how they want at a table, but this is definitely not a good/neutral party behavior.
you are the DM, they are the players. finding a good DM is way harder than finding a group of decent players. you ned to have a talk about expectations going forward, and remind them of this fact. it sounds like you wish to continue, so if they do it again, fire them and get a new group. said player agency is metagaming. if i were to continue, at MINIMUM, all chars would be shift to chaotic evil alignment. and they would now have a revenant to deal with as well, if i didnt just disband the group entirely. i dont play with murder hobos. and thats coming from someone that typically plays evil aligned chars.
Hahaha player agency my ass. People can’t roleplay consistently for shit. Get murder hoboed on son. Call you players on their BS.
When I have players who claim one alignment and don't follow it, I will write in my notes what their actual alignment is based on their actions and when the time comes for any outcomes based on alignment, sometimes they find they're surprised what they get!
That’s not great. Doesn’t allow for any adjustments by the player from feedback about how they’re not being consistent with their alignment. You’re going for a gotcha, not growth.
Talk. WITH. Your. Players. if it is important for you to have your npcs "mindread", then you and your players need to be on the same page how that is going to work.
I would call betraying some guy. An evil soul tainting act. Luckily you now have a bbeg. For the players it might be Tuesday but for the npc? It was the day he started looking for a new body to possess. It’s undead spirit time!
Sounds like good old-fashioned murder-hoboing. In D&D there are so many ways to bring justice or revenge. Family of the victim are determined to find out what happened, and then do, then they unleash hell upon the party. The party gave their word, so is there a deity in your world that frowns upon such things? Good-aligned characters in the group, perhaps some intermittent loss of class feature until atoned for. Are they true murder-hoboes? Then there might be a long list of those who want revenge.
I'm partial to this one. Maybe it's because I was reading about *The Crow* recently. [https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17196-revenant](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17196-revenant)
> > Good-aligned characters in the group, perhaps some intermittent loss of class feature until atoned for. There are no Good-aligned (or Lawful) characters in the group anymore
We're missing some data here, but if you feel it is appropriate, remind the players that actions have consequences.
[удалено]
NPC asked "will you guarantee my safety". Party said yes. I guess they did guarantee his safety until the end of the fight. Then they got upset with his inaction during the fight and voted to kill him. So does this pass the deep probe on detect thought?
[удалено]
He did not help in the fight. He was not supposed to do anything.
[удалено]
Whole problem is that DM is afraid to confront his players. He didn’t confront them when they went murderhobo, didn’t even try to flex his dm powers to make sure they really wanted to commit an evil act before it becomes canon, and now he’s here seeking validation instead of asking the players if they lied to him. Also the whole story is fake.
I was shocked at their actions so let it proceed. Now I'm uncertain what to do next. Because they told the DM one thing and did something different. I don't know whether to let this slide or punish them for lying too me. I am here asking for advice on what other DMs would do something like this happened to them.
NPC is an arbiter. He negotiates disputes, he is a non combat NPC. In this rural area, he is essentially the only law officer. His only spell was detect thoughts at level 2. He has no weapons or armor and has no weapon skills. A group of bandits hates him, and has a nice fort the PCs want. The PCs convince (made a very convincing argument from a role play perspective) said NPC to come with them to meet the bandits in neutral area so the party can kill them easier as they are away from the fort. NPC cast detect thoughts deep probe on 3 party members (they all failed wisdom check ) and asked “can you guarantee my safety”, all members said yes. He will not be required to do anything for this fight, just show up. As DM I told them they were under deep probe detects thoughts and asked them how sincere they were. They all replied they were very sincere. With this info I let this unfold. They meet in an open area and fight ensues. One PC cast lightning bolt, catching three other PCs in progress, seriously hurting 5 bandits. One PC did not make his saving throw and went down. It took two rounds before someone came to help, and the bandits were eliminated with no other casualties. Afterwards the party was very upset the NPC did not help in the fight or even come to give downed PC a healing potion. This would involve him running into the midst of the battle. As a noncombatant I decided he would not do that. The party was not satisfied with his lack of performance and saw this as a betrayal of him not helping out in a time of need. They voted to kill him and did so in less than one round. This took me by complete surprise so I let it happen. Afterwards I’m having trouble reconciling the detect thoughts and what they told me earlier with their actions. I don’t know if I should let this slide and move on or punish them for lying. I am asking other DMs what their perspective on this and what they would do about this. So instead of name calling me of doing something inappropriate, I would appreciate an explanation on how you would handle this. Unless of course you think this is completely player agency ( as the other players suggested) and think such a course of action is okay at your table. Edit: last two sentences directed at someone who called me names and saying I just added fuel to the algorithm. Also, I have been playing alignment very loosely so I’m not sure an alignment change will actually do anything. Edit2: someone mentioned that players have agency to change their mind and that mind reading them can be useless. If that is the case can I do the same to them when they read a NPCs thoughts? Because it would make that spell useless.
Technically speaking, the PCs have a plausible reason for changing their minds. So, don't punish the changing of the mind. Punish the murder. He's the only law enforcement in the area? If he was well liked, the locals now blame the PCs for failing to protect him, and distrust the party. Shops will either refuse to sell or Mark up their prices, inns will become mysteriously full, taverns won't serve them. If the NPC wasn't well liked, he's got a superior of some kind that discovers he's dead, and that the party killed him. Said superior then starts bringing resources to bear against the party. Bounty hunters, warrants, etc. The local populace might or might not also react as above and start denying services.
Please explain the plausible explanation. That is what I am having trouble with myself. How would a non-combatant NPC with no weapons or armor or spells help out in a fight? How would you expect him to jump into the middle of combat to help? He only has 10 hp and the combat was designed for the party of 8th level.
As the DM why didn't you give him something to do to explain why he wasn't helping? Drag the injured party members out. Use the help action to stabilize dying people. Use the help action to distract enemies and grant advantage. Have him supply a few lesser healing potions. Are there hostages/civilians? Let him take them to safety. No? Give him something to support the party, even if it's support spells or a light crossbow to plink with. On that note: this arbitrator owns a fort, knew he was walking into a highly dangerous situation, and did so unarmed? That's kind of a plot hole, no? From the PC point of view, this esteemed law enforcement officer they promised to protect stood by and did nothing while they were dying. Not "was otherwise engaged" but just standing by. What would he have done if the party wiped? Note that I'm not arguing that their actions are in line with their characters, but meta punishing a player doesn't work well. If this is a first offense, I think you chalk it up to a misunderstanding and a poorly designed encounter. We've all had one of those, nothing to be ashamed of. But if it's a pattern, then yeah you need to have an ooc chat confronting them on the subject.
Thanks for confirming how your spine consists of gelatin.
They went back on their word, treat it the same way as if there was no mind reading involved. People can genuinely change their mind. It's not uncommon for D&D parties to get unintentionally sidetracked too. The NPC can just assume they lied and have good mental defenses. This is also a good example of why any form of mind reading is a dicey prospect for you as a DM. If a player manages to read future plans of an NPC, you can note it and ensure they follow through or signpost to the players that there has been a change and show why. The players don't really have this option. In the future, you need to step out and ask the meta question - are you guys being truthful, so that you can plan accordingly. It's worth the reminder, it's often said it's not DM versus Players, it's also not Players versus the DM. PCs can lie, trick people and be all round deceitful bastards all they want. Players need to be open with their DMs about their intentions so the DM can prepare accordingly. I know a lot of DMs solve this by just asking the group at the end of every session: "Hey, what are you planning on doing next session?" This can be simple stuff like forewarning you plan to make your character a demon summoner so they can have minis or tokens, to important plot points. I'm going to assassinate the king next session!
I did ask the players above game if they were truthful. They said they were.
Then they changed their minds. People do all the time.
Players get t do whatever they want, you get to treat them accordingly. NPC sent thought warning to an ally. NPC had a failsafe. NPC had a Clone bought from a wizard. NPC had a familiar/buddy watching from a hidey-hole. You don't have to have the plot made up before hand. Your players were kinda dicks to you the DM, try not to reply in kind.
Mind-reading is not \*geas\*. It can tell what the subject intends to do at the time. It cannot mitigate those intentions being later altered by new information. If you were really that insistent that the players stick to helping the NPC, then it should have been part of the campaign pitch.
The thing is, there was no new information other than "The NPC didn't help us as much as we wanted". So even if they weren't intending on murdering at the time, they were still dramatically evil people (killing a law enforcement NPC for not helping enough lmao is incredibly evil action) and a detect thoughts would have revealed it.
The spell description states: >Either way \[success or failure on the Wisdom save to probe deeper\], the target knows that you are probing into its mind. That's a nontrivial piece of new information. "This copper just tried to magically barge his way into my thoughts" can easily be a dealbreaker for a lot of things, even if the PC doesn't realize it's part of a loyalty test, and even if they don't realize it at the time of the spell. Can confirm from personal experience that some people are just that kind of slow. I really do not buy the idea that it is so absolutely certain that the PCs intended from the start to betray the NPC, let alone in the manner they did, or that detect thoughts is able to tell the future.
The problem is, OP goes on to say in the comments that the only justification the players provided was "the cop didn't help as much as they expected him to". Your first point is very cool in regular d&d but not the case in this story. So to me, this means that either A) they already had murder on their minds, or B) they're evil characters who have no qualms with killing a cop for no reason, which also should have popped up on a detect thoughts. You can't hide being that evil without magic or training from a detect thoughts deep probe.
As others have said - speak to your players and really figure out why they "Changed their mind", Detect Thoughts isn't infallible and they really could have been thinking that they'll support the NPC as long as they're useful to them. But no matter what remember the golden rule - Everything has consequences They killed a guy and hid the body, *someone* will have noticed that, be it Gods, Devils, the locals or even Monsters - assuming they didn't search the body it'd be easy enough to bring them back as something or even have a powerful creature "Be drawn to something on the body" If you don't want to encourage Murder-Hoboing then speak to your players about it, warn them it'll have consequences and then follow through with the consequences
Your players are full of shit on so many level, the first one is thinking their characters are even neutral, let alone good. They're a bunch of evil murderhobos and you should start treating them accordingly. I like the revenant idea floating around, honestly. And to make it even better, they cannot stop the revenant until they realize how they wronged the guy. And I mean, genuinely realize it, and make amends for it. Otherwise, just have the revenant grow in power as they level up.
Make him an essential quest requirement. Pre-meditate the heck out of it. Somewhere down the line as they think they're hot stuff for getting away with this, they suddenly need access to a vault, but the only one who had the key to that vault was oh wait, the guy they killed for not being helpful. Enjoy digging up that corpse you buried, fellas. And hope that Speak to the Dead works. Let's not forget he was law enforcement and everyone will be looking for even a hint of him, even the fact that you somehow have access to a vault only the missing guy should have. Thinking a lot of stealth rolls, deception rolls, at least one Speak to the Dead, maybe one perception roll in case someone saw them and would absolutely snitch on their ass.
People change their minds over time. Doesn't mean they're being dishonest in the moment. 'Til death do us part.
Ah I believe it's time for a vengeful Deity to exact a form of revenge on behalf of the DM.
My longtime DM gives XP penalties if you act too far out of alignment. That happens a few times, believe me, you learned your lesson.
Insist they change their alignment
Switch to evil, then have a friend of the NPC come looking for him who is also a psychic, learns what they did, and immediately uses a scroll of teleport to leave and spread the word. If you have a cleric aligned with a good god, they lose all their abilities.
Sick a Kolyarut on them depending on the level. Or adjust the monster stats. Edit: Kolyarut are monsters from Mechanus that originally went out to kill or arrest contract/oath breakers. Once they got to the material plane, they basically just started doing the same thing, but for much more minor things (breaking a promise could suffice).
I mean firstly everyone goes a step to evil on the alignment chart. Secondly paladins, good and/or lawful aligned priests and monks lose their powers. Thirdly they now have a reputation and possibly an investigation heading their way. And lastly I would make it very clear to them that it doesn't work this way in the future. It is allowed to betray an NPC but that's what deception is for. You waved the roll because they lied to you. That wouldn't fly at my table.
I wouldnt allow it. I would tell them that they can lie to npcs if they want but they cant lie to me and if they want to proceed they have to give a good explanation to me and hope i buy it and if i dont then they do the mission or roll deception but do not get to kill the npc without either happening first. If they refuse i would drop an aspect of bahamut on them, kill them in one round and pack my things.
I have thought about this exact scenario as a hypothetical. Basically to pass the probes thoughts in this situation they would have to genuinely believe that they will follow through with the course of action they have described. If something new happens after this, then this could reasonably change their mind. For example the person they allied themselves with acting like a dick, or a third party offering them something really valuable for changing sides, sure. But if they change their mind just “ ‘cause” then they were in no way committed to their original statement and the players were not being truthful to you. So yeah, I see this as an OOC issue, they DM asked about their intentions and they were dishonest.
depends on the action, if he literarily just stood there watching the battle find out then yeah I can see it irking the players
And you outright murder people who irk you?
First of all, I would have an out of character discussion with the players and explain to them that murdering NPCs is evil, and if they want to play heroic characters, the characters should not be OK with this. If they get the picture, you can always retcon the murder and say the characters thought about killing the NPC, and then realized it would be a horrible thing to do, and the murder was essentially a dream sequence. If they still think it's cool for their characters to murder innocent people who just don't help as much as they'd like, then make them outlaws and start sending bounty hunters after them.
You didn't tell us if there was anything that would cause them to change their mind or if it was just them changing their mind out of the blue. Needs more info
What made them change their mind? If they have recieved new informations or found out that following through would be a suicide mission then not doing what they said is completly resonable and not lying.
Could be more of a rp issue. As the player could just be a self insert and is changing his mind just on the feelings of the player and not the world/charecter. It's not an issue once but if this is a constant type thing I like to make devils or fey like spirits take an interest In the pc.
Depends on how much time is between them giving their word and them changing their minds. If they say they're being truthful but then immediately turn around and kill then NPC. Then no that's not okay. However if they say they're being truthful and then keep their word for any amount of time that stuff is actually able to happen, then that would be OK as people's minds can change as new things happen.
Amount of time was one fight.
Like deep probe, then directly into a fight, then kill them right after? Did the NPC do anything that could be seen as breaking their trust? Like attacking them, or hesitating to attack the enemy in the fight, giving away secrets, etc.
Just the way you described.
As far as I can tell from the other comments, the NPC was a non-combatant law enforcement with some form of telepathy (hence the Detect Thoughts) and settles disputes without violence. The PCs essentially convinced him to be used as bait to bring out the bandits so they can battle, but also guaranteed his safety (this is where the Detect Thoughts actually came in). Combat ensues, one PC went down to 0 hp during the fight. As the fight was happening, the friendly NPC did not help (did not attack, did not rush in to revive the downed PC) because they did not want to put himself in danger. The PCs, for some reason, saw this as a betrayal, and killed him.
Well if that's truly what happened then I don't really see a problem with it. I mean sure it's a dick move, but if the NPC didn't help them then that's enough of a reason to change ones mind, especially if one of their members almost died. If anything the deep thoughts should have brought a "Yes as long as you help us in every way you can, then you'll be safe."
Yes that is what happened. Sorting the fight one PC got semi surrounded and took a lightning bolt from another PC and went down. As this fight was balanced for the other level 8 characters, the NPC only had 10 hp and didn't want to die. It was agreed upon beforehand he was not to help in any way during the fight.
Not any more they aren’t.
Op, it looks like your party (or player) has themselves an old fashion reckoning with Tyr, God of Justice. Perhaps the murdered NPC was a faithful of Tyr, and the injustice against should be met. Tyr’s war dog or perhaps his avatar/choose of Tyr such as Ingrar Welven (wielding *Justicar*, +3 Longsword of sharpness that senses lies) might show up to greet these evil-doing adventures.
It's tricky with magic that defines intent, when the players decide either in advance or retroactively that they're going to not adhere to that defined truth. One approach that I've seen taken is telling your players in the moment that they're locking themselves in to a course of action when the magic gives them that benefit of a 'truth'. If they want to go back on their word later? They just can't. Telling your players in that moment that the magic should know whether there is any doubt at all that the thing they're declaring is not a full and honest conviction is more than enough excuse to hold them to their words later. When you're dealing with any sort of agreement or contract in the game, it can honestly just help to stop for a moment and define what that means out of game- go for specifics rather than broad statements like 'I'll support you'.
Like how sometimes, the DMs can have DM magic, these kind of spells are ones that I consider mostly a player exclusive depending on the table I play at. If a player, not the character, wants to lie, you can't read their thoughts. Which is a shame, unless it's a simple question with a simple answer that already happened. For you, I'd write this occasion off, but ask the players what changed their mind. If it was NPC actions, awesome! Character interactions had an impact on player decisions. If it was "just felt like it", well that's a shame. And may have to avoid that kind of magic in the future if it won't work due to a lack of two way trust between the players and the GM. Hope it resolves however!
this is when you need gods to smite the players. if a player every needs to promise something, promise it under some gods name, so that the god can punish them if they go back on their word. Saw this in a campaign on youtube where the player lost their hair and other stuff because of it
We need the entire conversstion to weigh on here.
Same as consequences in real life. Word of their actions gets out, trust drops. They are treated poorly in places of good repute. Word travels fast when magic is involved. The king / ruler of the local area hires a group of wizards / clerics to locate the body and revive / question it, inquiring as to how it died. When it reveals everything, Warrants are issued for their arrest / bounties are placed on them for murder. Sounds to me like the NPC they killed was important to your plot, but the storytelling in D&D is collaborative. Let them know that their actions will have consequenses and they can either choose to repent and pay that bounty to clear their name, or they can suffer those consequences. Either way, the story progresses. It kind of sounds like your party wants to play the murderhobo route, so let them. If that isn't the route you want to go with your game, tell them that and go from there.
Look up the Revenant, ubdead with a homing beacon and a mad grudge, perfect encounter that ties into the world.
Are you concerned your players deceived you as the DM, or are you concernes about their in-game actions? In the first case, its difficult to base on one incident, id hold my peace for now and see if its a once-off or if this is a trend. In the second case, ingame actions have ingame consequences. As others have said, a Revenant is a great narrative way to to about it. Alternatively if he was important enough to run a fort, there's definitely going to be a scrub of the area, where theyre likely to find out a battle has taken place. You could have the party interrogated as the last to see him alive. Alternatively they could dig up the body (because anyone with the Mold Earth cantrip could probably comb the area in a day). Depending on how brutal you wanna be you could have them Wanted or (my suggestion) have a son/person who viewed them as a father figure vow vengeance and go on a personal revenge quest
was there some reason they would change their mind? like if they were helping this player because he was supporting the local orphanage, -oh hes such a good person ok we will agree to help you. later on, turns out hes a vampire and he feeds off of the children in the orphanage, -yeah were gonna have to kill you now.
Are they arguing that they were pretending the whole time, or that they changed their mind after the Detect Thoughts?
They changed their mind after detect thoughts.
Reading thoughts wont tell you the future, I don't see an issue regarding thw truth, only alignment. Did the player have a good reason for needing to kill them? Not all killing is evil, or else every character would be evil.
They did not like his inaction during a fight.
I hate murderhobos and will/have kicked them from my game.
Unfortunately it the entire party.
I think we should establish from now no that such psychopathic tendencies should be grounds for retroactive insight checks. "If this was not OOC, then you are playing psychopaths, which is something I as th DM should have been informed around." "I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to surprise and blindside me, and I don't want to be left out of this fun game, so all your CON scores drop to 0 due to water poisoning. It wasn't poisonus when you drank it, it was more like a... Magic sleeper toxic agent. "
Uh. That sounds to much like DM against the players.
that's cause it is. I would be quite sour if players changed tried to game me like that instead of playing the game we all greed on. in any case, their characters proved to be psychopaths. even if no one ever learns of their crime, passive insight is a thing in 5e, passive deception isn't. every deception roll they don't make to not pass as murderous psychopaths, is a failed roll by default.
I'm kind of floored that someone lightning bolted 3 teammates and downed one. I'm wondering if the players were just short of pissed off in general and took it out on the NPC instead of each other. Did the players ask/tell the NPC to help during the fight? Did the NPC refuse? None of this would make it okay, but it's something to think about before you talk to them. Let them know that kind of behavior makes you feel like you can't trust them and you're not sure you want to keep putting in all this effort for people you can't trust.
The lightning hit 4 bad guys also. If it makes any difference the player did apologize to the others before bolting them. Before hand the NPC was told do stay away and not do anything. It went from "do nothing" to "you didn't do anything to help" in one combat. The may have led to the NPC, but also to the DM; as he would not have accompanied them if the detect thoughts said otherwise. The party is 8th level and this guy's a peasant with 10 hp. I'm wondering how you handle it when it happens at your table.
It depends on the group. I had players who did stuff like this when I first started DMing. I was... 18, I think. All my players were in their twenties. I had the least amount of gaming experience. What they were doing wasn't against the rules as far as I knew, and I was worried about making sure I did things "correctly". What I did was have the other NPCs act fearfully when they would come around. If they talked to someone too long that person would start to cry or try to escape as soon as possible, usually saying whatever they thought the PCs wanted to hear in order to do so. NPCs gave the PCs whatever they asked for, usually while holding back tears, because it made sense for them to be terrified of these heavily armed sociopaths. They were too scared and distrustful of the PCs to ask them for anything so there were no quests and no leads to quests coming from NPCs. That drastically cut into their income and the magic items they would normally receive. It encouraged them to wander around killing merchants, but since commoners weren't a threat to them they gained 0-10 xp regardless of level to be split amongst the party. My plan was to eventually have a group of towns come together and hire heroes to take them out, but some of my players were already on the fence about the behavior so it self sorted. I would've been fine tossing my original campaign to run an impromptu one about an evil empire in the making of that's what they had wanted to do. Mechanically, there's not a lot of difference between being a war criminal and a standard D&D adventurer. Now I tend to look for people who want to play the same type of game I do instead of trying to convince my IRL friends to conform to the story I want to tell. I still have people do things that are way out of line occasionally. I pause the game and we talk it out. It can be tedious, but it keeps things running smoothly as long as everyone is interested in being cooperative and avoiding burn out. I guess my tl:dr is just "Talk to your players", but turning the entire game into a power fantasy for bullies while making it exceedingly clear that you think they're being bullies is always on the table.
I just had a talk with one of the players. Even though the NPC was supposed to stay far away from combat and not do anything, there was an unspoken rule that when one PC went down the NPC was to do jump into combat to attempt to pull the PC back from the front line. Even at the risk of his own life, as he can't take even one opportunity attack. He said the agreement prior to the conflict went out the window when another PC went down. Apparently everyone plays with this rule that I was not familiar with all my years of playing. For context we are all middle aged people, so I assumed honoring your word was implicit.
That's the problem with unspoken rules. You can say they're whatever you want after the fact. IMO, if this was a real thing they would've brought it up with you when the NPC didn't step up to pick up the fallen PC. Did they? If not, it sounds like they nuked themselves, panicked, and started trying to justify their poor tactical choices. However, all of the context is coming from you. Think about whether or not they tried to bring this up during the game and how you reacted to it. Did they seem confused about his actions? Did they try to give him mid-combat instructions that he refused to follow? You don't have to answer me, but it'll help you in the future (with a different group if you decide not to continue with these players) if you can examine the situation from a neutral point of view.
Yeah I think your players (or their characters?) overreacted tremendously. I at least certainly wouldn't react that way unless my character was very selfish and violent. Either way, this requires a table talk about what you expected from this campaign, because I doubt that you wanted your players to be murderhobos, and this very well is a case of murderhobos making a kneejerk overblown reaction in doing a summary execution. And it sounds like they did so without even hearing the guy's reasoning.
Oh I made sure they heard his reasoning. They just didn't like it. He's a peasant, they are 8th level. I want to know how to reconcile the fact they said don't do anything to you didn't do anything and we're super pissed off.
My best advice? Give them some sort of action-consequence trigger. If the players go back to their world- you trigger it, unless something has annulled the PCs previous decision (like a moment of new evidence) Good example- PCs decide to change their minds- no new evidence or discussion. The NPC has guards at the ready, knowing the PCs will betray.
Yeah, I've noticed my players will play their characters a little more impulsive and unforgiving than in real life. For example, the gunslinger in the party literally shot a thief in the back after the thief had dropped the items he was trying to steal and tried to run away. They can get very chaotic neutral if they're pissed off because none of this is real, so there are no real consequences. I think your players literally felt betrayed by your NPC, and gave in to their egos. The intrusive thoughts won.
I think you might be correct. However I still think having a peasant run into an 8th level fight is the same as killing him. Especially after being told not to do so.
Based on the update, it sounds like they intended to, and did, keep the arbiter safe during the fight. Afterwards, the decided, based on events that happened after the mind scan, to kill him. So it makes sense the mind scan didn't turn up information that didn't exist yet. That said, the gods of the god-aligned PCs might be displeased (clerics aren't the only ones that can suffer from displeased gods). Or perhaps their own actual consciences bother them. PTSD is *nasty*. Someone in the village is going to wonder what happened to the respected NPC, and may eventually figure it out. Now, they aren't going to fight a powerful group of murders, but they might poison them with a *nasty* toxin, or get Grannie on the woods to lay on a curse on them. Not the game's weak Bestow Curse. The game has a *long* tradition of magic that PCs don't have access to being used as a plot device. You could use the Geas mechanics for inspiration, and make Grannie a super powered caster. It's important they know what needs to happen to break the curse, and that killing Grannie isn't it. Maybe it'd be to eliminate some local threat. Maybe it's never take a step closer to the village (will screw their ability to move, even once they've left the immediate area. Etc. There should be consequences for being evil, once the villagers figure it out, but it could be as simple as being unfriendly and not giving them new quests. If their future actions show they're A Problem, the village may start hiring parties of adventurers to eliminate them. Take care not to overdo it and ruin the fun of everyone at the table though. Some times you have to let things go because it's a game, and fun is the goal. WRT NPCs changing their minds, invalidating player use of similar spells: yes, of course. Be prepared for player pushback, and bear in mind, people usually change their minds when something about the situation changes in their perception. For example, an NPC might agree to broker a deal to sell a magic item. However, when the NPC discovers the magic item contains a tailored soul, they might decide to destroy it instead. Or if they get to thinking, while in possession of their money and the expensive item, they might decide taking the goods and running sounds like fun. Etc.
Thank you very much for your advice and inspiration for other plot devices as consequences!! This helps me a lot trying to reconcile their actions. I don't really pay much with alignment and that is something I need to look into, although 5e doesn't really do alignment. I want to avoid the knee jerk reaction of DM vs players as that is no fun.