I recently had a campaign go - what I consider - off the rails.

Essentially two of the PCs decided to openly challenge the local city Captain of the thieves guild, and threaten him with death repeatedly if he didn't walk away, in front of his people, while they ( the party ) were being held at crossbow point by a full dozen heavy Guild enforcers who - while the party doesn't know it - are pretty much on par with the party for attack ability and HP.

The resulting combat is - as of yet - unresolved, as we ran up against a time hard limit. But I'm pretty sure some or all of the PCs will probably die - statistically speaking, so I'll probably have to have the city guard break into the raging firefight going down in a dockside tavern, club everyone into unconsciousness ( PCs and Guild alike ), and throw everyone in jail for awhile while it gets sorted out ( Thanks to some Forum members for suggesting that solution in a different thread ).

This is all really the result of two characters/players being "mouthy without thought to consequences", and - of course - to me the DM not handling the situation correctly ( don't put players in a hopeless corner ).

As part of figuring out this mess I am going to have a sit down with my players and talk about actions having consequences and that while I'm trying to run the world impartially, I'm also trying to do so logically and plausibly, so if you pull stupid s%#t ...  ( hey, I'm not going to kill you, this pack of Mind Flayers are going to kill you, because you set their High Priest on fire ... ).

Now one of the players - whose character is partially responsible for triggering off this mess - finally got her backstory to me last session, and hey, she's got immunity from the guard ( apparently she's a CI informant ), and from the Thieves Guild ( her family are long standing members, highly influential members, wouldn't you know), and hey, look at that, she's related to the Guild master who runs the entire integrated thieves guild over the whole island ( what a useful coincidence ... ). I'd veto large parts of it as overpowered normally - but, I didn't read it in depth before last session, and for me to ret-con the munchkin aspects of it now might seem arbitrary and vengefully connected to her character's stupidity in the last scene.

But it occurred to me, that her backstory - as written - lends some really interesting story developments to this mess, and really drives home the whole point about consequences.

• She's related to the overall Guild Master, and the "bad guy" they're in a firefight with right now, is the local city Captain of the thieves guild.
• She's not incognito, the Guild Captain indicated that he'd normally just kill anyone who double-crossed him ( she did ), but "other players" wanted the PCs alive, and was angling to rope the party into doing "a job" for him ( whereas he lets it be known that they were working for him, they appear to be subservient to him publicly, so they're not defiant, he gets something he wants, everyone walks away - except, you know, devolving into a firefight before he can make his pitch).
• So - from a particular paranoid perspective ( and someone in power in a thieves would be paranoid ) - a member of the Guild Master's family just tried to assassinate one of the City Captains.
• The Captains react, believing that the Guild Master is trying to eliminate them and assume direct personal control over their cities ( and/or view it as an opportunity to topple the Guild Master and seize control of the organization ), so the Guild starts to tear itself apart in civil war.
• Some of her family may "go to ground", others would be high priority targets in the shadow war. Either way, the power of her family in the guild is likely to be under attack and diminish.
• Since the party is engaged in lethal combat ( already deaths ) in a fight, in a bar, on a weekday afternoon, in the middle of the city, the PCs are going to prison. They're likely to get suspended sentences - or just exiled - as they just performed a significant service for the city, and have not yet cashed in on their agreed-upon reward ( which would now be changed to "we're letting you go, don't push it").
• Since she's shown that she lacks discretion, control, judgement - and hey, murdered citizens ( thieves guild citizens, but still citizens ) - it's unlikely that the Guard will wish to retain her as a CI, with all her self-awarded immunity perks.

Now ... all this makes sense to me ... but I'm concerned it could be seen as vindictive, or a "claw back" of her self-awarded munchkin perks.

To be clear - she's not going to be the only PC for which there are consequences ( that would be a d%@k move ).

Thoughts?

Do not rescue players characters. If you can kill pc without breaking game mechanic or story logic, do it.

I can kill PCs without breaking game mechanics or story logic.

I can NOT kill PCs without breaking game mechanics or story logic.

In fact, the latter has a LOT of story mining potential.

What I'm wondering is whether the consequences I'm mapping out sound vindictive, or not.

I'm guessing your vote would be "no" - since you're advocating character death, which is probably worse.

There is nothing wrong with characters death in DnD. The problem is that players will feel that thier characters are immortal if you rescue them all the time.

I like your solution. I don't think it's vindictive - I'd certainly consider something like that.

That sounds like a good job adjudicating there. Honestly, it is an impressively thought out way to keep things going without killing the party or going back on a decision that you've already made (green lighting the back story). Inspiration to the DM here, kudos. No vindictiveness, no dickery. Be aware that if the player is truly being a munchkin, then they will call foul loosing all of their immunity regardless of how much sense it makes.

That being said, consequences, always consequences. Consequences need not be bad, but it is important to make sure that your PC's know that their actions (or sometimes inaction) have an affect on the things around them, even if they don't know it yet. If given a choice between death and drama, I usually stick with the drama. My PC's are not immortal, but my players tend to respond better and renew their RP vigor when they get the chance to explore a new paradigm around them and add it to their characters story than to make a relatively new blank slate.

'

Thanks for the feedback!

I agree that it's possible I might piss off the Bard player, but at the end of the day, I'd rather deal with a grumpy player - or even losing a player - then having the campaign dissolve into an unintentional fun house dungeon spree.

As for the other players - what will happen will be highly dependent on the next 2-3 rounds of combat, and how they react when the guard arrives ( god help the Paladin of Protection if he throws down on Lawful guards executing their duty to protect the population of the city). I think what will happen ( or I'll try to unfold - we all know what happens when Players intersect concrete DM plans ) - is that we'll incarcerate everyone in the Inn, and play out a fair and balanced inquest/trial.

I think that won't go well for the party - they did "shoot up" the tavern ( civil damages ), kill citizens, balanced against an element of reasonable desire for self defense ( the party was being threatened, even though the Paladin did draw a weapon and start the fight ). Given their recent "civil service" for the city, impounding chattels to pay for the repairs to the Inn - minus personal clothing, armor, a person weapon, and a "generous living allowance" of 10gp - and a one year term of exile, should be sufficient redress. It also gets the - just recently 4th level - party out of the city and on the road.

Thieves guild retaliation would be the aforementioned civil war, and against the Cleric - whose family lives in the city - the Guild will probably burn down her Father's place of business and toss the family home - but is not likely to injure or kill any of her extended family, especially as the Cleric was not belligerent or threatening to the Guild Captain ( if he survives the fight ).

The rest of the party is nomadic - no family or real property in the city - so no immediate thieves guild retaliation, but who knows what will happen over the course of the civil war.

Thanks for the feedback, all.

Just one thought I had to help you prep your players, if you do choose to go a more deadly route. Let them know that the encounter could be deadly, and then you can suggest that they prep a new character ahead of time, so if events do go awry they don't have to spend time at the table creating a new character. While they probably don't want their characters to die, hopefully they'll have cool ideas for their new character and will be excited to make the switch. Managing expectations seems key here.

[Edited a word]

So 1) IMMUNITY from either the guard or the guild would be beyond the power of what a backstory could potentially accomplish. Looking at certain standard backstories, what you usually get is advantage on intimidation/negotiation with low-level cultists/guardsman/soldiers/members of a guild. I would throw that out instantly, if the PC didn't talk to me before the backstory was written. The fact that she started a fight between 2 powers within a city and then magically pulled a pair of Get out of jail free cards out of her @$$ mid fight is absurd.

Next, imho she should have to pick between advantage with the thieves guild (eager to please because of daddy) or the guard (the perks of being a CI.) I wouldn't give her both. I might allow her to plead a case for leniency vs the other based on info in the backstory, but it would be far from a guarantee. Probably at disadvantage... or maybe she has 1 contact in the guards who will try to protect her, because she's useful... but no way in hell would she be immune from prosocution if a guard (or family member, cough cough) ended up dead.

___________________________

That being said, the back story is yours to do with what you want. What SHE gets is the little box at the end that says "this character is able to stay for free at any inn if he performs" or "this character is able to forage for food" or "this character can secure passage on a ship" or whatever. Everything else in the back-story is moot until you or she invokes it at which point it's a judgement call on your part whether that thing applies.

I agree as to the absurdity of it. However - she hasn't tried to exploit that backstory. yet. The fight in the bar isn't even over yet - it got shelved "until next week". That would be tomorrow evening.

I guess the reason I'm thinking of going down this road is that a) The consequences of the action that I'm thinking are plausible - loss of CI status, and likely starting a civil war in the guild which would put her extended family at the center of it ( since it was her backstory that put them in the middle of the guild) - drains her backstory of the absurdly munchkin elements , and b) since the  events that pull the teeth on her backstory are partially triggered by her own actions, should drive home the idea that even in a fantasy world, stupid actions and attitudes have consequences.

The part of this which is my own fault, is not reading her backstory closely, until it was "too late', and I'd kind of implicitly "green lit" it. Had I read closely, I would have veto'd the munchkin aspects, prior to this mess. 

The aspect that I'm struggling with now is the PC which is more centrally and directly responsible for this mess - the one that directly and repeatedly threatened the Guild Captain with death if he didn't walk away, in front of his men - really doesn't have any handy levers like this.

That character has no family, and nothing really that they care about - so it's hard to devise logical consequences that have a lot of impact on that character, and it's tough to drive that point home to the player ( and going out of one way to "teach a player a lesson" is - at best - a steep, slippery,  and dangerous slope for a DM ).

However, I think I'm looking forward to playing out a good "investigation & trial" cinematic; Law & Order: Veccoria ( the campaign world setting ).

• So - from a particular paranoid perspective ( and someone in power in a thieves would be paranoid ) - a member of the Guild Master's family just tried to assassinate one of the City Captains.

• The Captains react, believing that the Guild Master is trying to eliminate them and assume direct personal control over their cities ( and/or view it as an opportunity to topple the Guild Master and seize control of the organization ), so the Guild starts to tear itself apart in civil war.

I think this is a great idea -- sure sounds like a civil war may have been brewing for a while to me.  Some of the other captains in the Thieves' guild have recently been complaining to each other about how the "family" (in charge) is taking extra cuts and might not be being fully honest with the splits throughout the guild (It's a thieve's guild, this is super common).  Most captains are on the fence with this accusation, maybe have some suspicion but without any actual blatant proof aren't willing to pull the trigger on a "open rebellion".  Now with this most recent development of one of the "family" openly attacking a Captain who wasn't completely convinced yet of the corruption of "the family" is totally convinced, as well as other Captains that were on the fence about the issue.  If "the family" is willing to openly rout this guy, what are they going to do to the rest of us, it's time for some new leadership in the guild.  While "the family" might have strong ties and many throughout the guild, perhaps within the next few days the GuildMaster has been surprised and taken hostage by some of the rebelling parties and are threatening a "public execution" of sorts, unless "the family" as a whole leaves the island.  

As far as the guard showing up to "save the day" and keep the PC's alive, getting jailed there is good, as well as jailing the main members on the other side of the fight.  The Thieves' Guild influence might be great enough to get them all out without much trouble, though the actual guards that witnessed this wouldn't agree with the decision, but hey, they're just guards and not the ones in charge.  Maybe that builds some more story as well, as there is a group of LG guards now that know the party is super shady, and that their leadership is easily bought, and now are on a quest themselves to restore order to this once honest settlement.  

Was the player trying to be a chunder-head or did the character really believe she was above (and below) the law?

A paladin drew steel and started the fight? Was the player trying to be a chunder-head or did the character really believe that was the best way to represent his faith?

Is being imprisoned really such a consequence? Maybe if you sit at the table later, eating pizza, chugging beer, while they make do with bread and water, learning to play the harmonica and role-playing making friends with the rats....
in reality it's more likely to be DM: "You spend three week in jail before..."
Let's face it, them being imprisoned hurts you almost as much as them.

@MirrorlessMpls said have them roll up new characters in advance. If any of the characters have any family or allies left, these new characters may have been hired to bust the old ones out of jail...or assasinate them while in there. The story goes on, with a twist, rather than a break.

Really wish there was a way of unbolding text. I feel like Captain Kirk about now. :)

Edit: oh, it only shows as bold while I am in edit mode. Weird.

I'm not sure if the motives of the players are totally relevant - if I cross a street against the light, does it matter whether or not I was going for a pack of smokes, or trying to rescue an orphan when the car hits me, so far as getting hit by a car is concerned? Likewise for tearing apart a tavern and murdering city citizens ( Thieves Guild citizens who themselves are going to end up in prison, but still citizens under the Law ) - it's a stupid thing to do, and it's STILL against the law.

Sentencing will absolutely reflect that there was reasonable expectation that they were in danger of harm - but a) they completely created the situation by stupidly antagonizing people with weapons who had "the drop" on them, and b) they reacted with disproportionate force and aggression. If I threaten to break your nose, you are allowed to defend yourself - even try to break mine. You are not likely legally entitled to whip out an automatic rifle and empty a clip into me.

In the case of the Bard, I'm pretty sure she does think her self-awarded backstory gives her immunity. In the case of the Paladin, I'm pretty sure that's an out-and-out mistake; he's new to RPGs.

Prison is not meant to be the consequence - well, partly for the characters, maybe - but terms of game-time they'll be in prison only as long as it takes to conduct the investigation and trial, most likely.

The lost world time will have negative effects on some aspects - at least one character will be in trouble for agreeing to take on a time-sensitive task and then spend time in prison past that deadline.

But the "punishment" aspect of the players/characters will come in other forms: fines, loss of agreed upon ( but not yet delivered ) rewards for the task they just performed for the Exarch, loss of status with ( and immunities from ) law enforcement,  etc. Prison is really mostly for flavor, and for driving home "you done screwed up".

"I'm not sure if the motives of the players are totally relevant"
Motives in modern western society are always relevant. They will always have an impact on sentencing (or at the least, the judge will claim to have taken them into consideration.) But the motives of the player should always be examined when playing D&D. I believe that if the player's motives are pure, then whatever stupid, chunder-head decision the character makes the player should not be punished. That is not to say the character shouldn't die...but it shouldn't be to punish the player. I have broken this rule far too often. /shameface.

"Sentencing will absolutely reflect that there was reasonable expectation that they were in danger of harm." Depends on the legal system. In many societies (real world and fantasy) sentencing is not based on the same criteria as people in the first world expect today:
"Can you hold your breath for longer than three minutes?"
"Guilty! Burn the witch!"

"I'm innocent and I will prove it by beating up this other guy."

"Our guy is innocent - here's a wad of cash to help prove it."

" If I threaten to break your nose, you are allowed to defend yourself - even try to break mine." Yeah, not sure about that either. If you actually attempt to break my nose, then yes, I can defend myself with 'reasonable force.' 
This can be further complicated by the level of training I have in unarmed combat, and the level of perceived threat. Witnesses will further muddy the water. In my country, anyway.

In a campaign I once ran, a dictator of a small country who were on the brink of developing ICBMs threatened a much larger empire with a damn good nuking if they didn't keep their nose out of dictator business, and when the threatened Emperor Tweeted that he would fireball the other country into oblivion if he tried to pull that crap on him, the Emperor got a ton of bad press for his response. Not Good.

It is highly dependant on the situation.

For the record, my motivation in this thread is to stay awake until 5.30, and I find healthy debate works nicely in that regard.  :) Most of what Vedexant said was very reasonable, and possibly true in the OP's campaign world. I just like to roleplay the Devil's Advocate.

EDIT : I'd forgotten that it was your campaign world, so you know the legal rules for there better than me! After wiping egg off face, I will ask, do the characters/players know the laws? Do they have the same outcome expectations as you?

I still maintain, that DM response should be based on player motive.

And I'd still love to hear the outcome.  

"In the case of the Paladin, I'm pretty sure that's an out-and-out mistake; he's new to RPGs."

Time to meet his superior, and learn the meaning of penance....This is a great role-playing opportunity!

No eggs have been harmed in the discussion of this situation :D

"In a campaign I once ran, a dictator of a small country who were on the brink of developing ICBMs threatened a much larger empire with a damn good nuking if they didn't keep their nose out of dictator business, and when the threatened Emperor Tweeted that he would fireball the other country into oblivion if he tried to pull that crap on him, the Emperor got a ton of bad press for his response. Not Good." - wow, that's crazy, good thing this sort of thing never happens in real life! :p

I agree that there's a player/character split here, and I'm "Trying not to be D%#K" by trying to ensure it's not a case of "DM punishing a Player for doing what they think is stupid and annoying" ( even though, as the DM I'm annoyed at the Player for being stupid ), and trying to have it be "the world punishing the character for being stupid ( if and only if that's warranted )", if you see the important distinction there.

I also agree that motives are important in Western legal systems - to a point. In modern western systems, what I intended to do makes the difference between 1st degree murder, manslaughter, and self-defense - to a point. If I use an anti-personnel flame thrower, and then claim self-defense ... that's a hard sell.

And yes - some historical judicial and sentencing systems are a bit "colorful".

Figuring out how Law and Jurisprudence work in my campaign setting ( or at least in this one culture, which is loosely based on a small Mediterranean trading city state, likely near Greece ) has been interesting.

How does it affect "criminal investigation" when being conducted by a Cleric of the Domain of Knowledge, worshiping a Goddess of Law ( that's the NPC )?

It's actually way easier than our own modern system when you have access to Zone of Truth ( did you do X? Did you do so because you believed Y? ) and Speak with Dead ( Who killed you? ).

In any case, we're playing tonight, I'll post the results.

One thought, what happens in the real world when the chief of police's child or the mayor's child get's caught in the middle of a bar fight?  And the bar owner goes to the city council meeting and complains to the city council that the child started the fight and did all sorts of damage to their business?

I'd do two things.  

First, I wouldn't have the guard stop the fight until one PC is making death saving throws.  If they fail all 3 death saving throws, by pure coincidence there's a high level cleric in town who will raise the dead PC for a price that strips that PC of every single magic item and half of all of his/her other wealth.  

Second, I'd have the party fix the tavern that they destroyed and pay for all of the lost business that the tavern owner lost while the bar is closed being repaired.  And everyone knows that tavern owners can be creative about costs when someone gives them an open purse and says, "It's on me." Make the damages that they're required to pay high enough that they can't pay them immediately and don't let them back into the town until they pay them.  And make the word of their indiscretion travel.  Every now and then have the city watch at a new town refuse to let them into the town because, "The mayor heard that you're trouble and we don't want your type here.".

I plan on conducting the remainder of the fight, with no punches being pulled, except the last blow of a PC going down will be "to incapacitate". The Guild Captain did indicate that it's imprudent for him to kill any of the characters. Essentially they'll go down, and I'll tell them that they aren't making death saving throws.

I estimate 1-3 of the the party will go down before the guard arrive; could be a TPK.

The Cleric in question will be the Investigator ( actually a Bearer of the Law  and a 5th level priest of Mandura, Goddess of Law ) she won't need to revive the party, but she will use Zone of Truth and Speak with Dead ( on the dead Guild Enforcers ) to find out what happened.

Unless the party can make a good case ( truthfully ) - the following verdict will likely be handed down for the PCs.

1. Disturbing the Peace: Guilty - Fine
2. Destruction of Private Property & Loss of Custom ( namely the Nereid, the dock district tavern they're tearing apart ) : Guilty - Fine
3. Murder ( of the Guild Members ): NOT guilty, on grounds of reasonable expectation of self-defense
4. Murder ( of Guards ): guilty IF they attack and kill Guards; not even a charge if they don't do it.
5. Assault ( on Guild Members ): Guilty - Fine
6. Assault ( on Guards ): guilty IF they attack the Guards; not even a charge if they don't do it.

Fines might not be enough that the party can't afford it ( they are overly flush; my fault ) - but I know it will be more than some characters currently have on them. It will be interesting to see if more wealthy PCs will "kick in". I'm also giving them the option to pay off fines by "relinquishing assets of commensurate value to municipal stores, with the value of said assets to be appraised by the Guard Quartermaster" ( read, give up gear at 1/2 replacement value ), or to "present themselves to the overseer of Public Works to discharge their debt at the rate of ______ per day" ( I've been working on the chain gang ). 

Now, the Guild Members involved in the fray that are taken down by the Guards, will also be tried, and they definitely will be found guilty on 1,2,3 ( attempted, party), possibly 4,5,6 depending on how it plays out. Those particular  members will end up being Transported ( there's a very unpleasant penal mining colony in a volcano offshore ), since it's very unlikely they are up for their first offenses.

The non-legal consequences are likely to be:

1. The Bard will lose her Confidential Informant status with the guard, and as such, any-and-all immunity or special considerations for future actions
2. The Thieves Guild will be plunged into Civil War; at least one of the Bard's relatives will be killed, some will disavow her, some will "go to ground", and the family trading fleet will partially go over to the City Captains in revolt, with the balance being taken away from the Island by her Mother ( likely to go Pirate for awhile until the war cools down ).
3. If she walks into the Capital anytime soon, one power faction or another is likely to try to kidnap and/or kill her as a move in, or means to end, the civil war.
4. The Paladin will likely need to confess / atone / repent to not be stripped of abilities. How severe this will be will depend on what his reactions are to the guard.
5. The Warlock agreed to take on a mission for "The Ebon Order", at the request of his father. That mission has a time limit. They will be in jail longer than that.
6. The Thieves Guild will retaliate against the family of the party Cleric - as they're an easy target - but that will be property damage and harassment, no one injured or killed ( the Cleric has not actually assaulted the Thieves Guild, yet - she just has the misfortune to be there).
7. The Ranger is likely to have a sizable bounty on his head ( he was the most insulting ) by the Guild Captain - if the Captain survives the Nereid.

Ooh, I am remembering the last scene of the Empire Strikes Back. :)

It may look pretty bleak for the characters right now, but Heroes rarely get it easy. I hope they respond positively.