In a campaign I'm currently running we have two clerics: A NG cleric of Sarenrae and a LN cleric of Zon-Kuthon.
Now they have managed to come to an accord working together, however with the LN cleric he's being asked to do some things on behalf of his evil church. Including kidnapping a priest of Desna for an upcoming "event".
Just how far would you push it in this kind of situation, as far as the potential of friction that could be generated between players in the party?
|
I wouldn't have allowed the conflict in the first place. I would have asked one or both of the characters to change their concept so that there isn't any initial conflict (either immediate or impending).
Making characters that conflict is (IMO) breaking the social contract you're under as a player.
Since you're already in the situation I'd say let it play out until it's obvious that one or the other gets pushed out of the group and let that player make a new character, possibly using their old one as an NPC (ask first, of course). If a conflict arises at the player level, solve it in a meta-game fashion immediately. Not preferable, but oh well.
I wouldn't have allowed the conflict in the first place.
I agree with you. This just has reciped for disaster written all over it.
Agreed... unfortunately I wasn't thinking when I OK'd the LN cleric at the beginning of the campaign. So I'm working with what I have here.
So far everyone is enjoying themselves, even with the underlying intrigue regarding the LN cleric. At the same time though, I'm also seeing the proverbial "line in the sand being drawn" amongst the party.
Which leads me back just how far is to far, provided the players are enjoying themselves? I know the LN player will kill off the party, if he feels his character is feeling threatened (he's done it in the past).
Any advise to maintain that edge the party is on?
+1 to stabbity
|
I remember a long time ago, back in 2nd eddtion, I think it was around 95 or 96; I was playing in a game at the local gaming store. The GM had some 10, or was it 14 players at the table. He let everything in. One friend of mine had just gotten ahold of the Humanoid’s handbook. He made a Chaotic Evil Bugbear cleric. I made a Lawful Good Kensai.
I thing if memory serves me well, we were beginning the “night below campaign”. The whole lot of us were in an in.
I remember as my character was walking down the upstairs hallway in the in, he saw a large orange furred arm reach out of a room and yank the innkeeper into a room. My character heard a yelp, and kicked in the door. I saw that the bugbear was getting ready to sacrifice the innkeeper. My Kensai told the bugbear priest to release the innkeeper. He said “ I'm going to sacrifice him” and he told the Dm he was going to bring his knife down on the innkeeper.
The DM asked us to roll imitative. I won. I quick drawed, and used my characters “ki strike” so he got full damage with his Katanna. My Kensai dropped the Bugbear priest.. The innkeeper ran away screaming from his ordeal.
Some other characters entered the room. One of them asked my character what he had done. I told him, that “the bakamono was going to sacrificed the innkeeper. I wasn’t going to stand by and let it happen.” “ but you killed a party member you cant do that”
I replied “ I have told you what I did and why. I don’t need to justify myself to you. “
The other player had his character put his hand on his weapon and said “ you cant go killing party members” I then asked him “ are you challenging me?”
Meanwhile the Halfling cleric had snuck in while I was arugeing and had case a cure light wounds spell on the bugbear priest. The priest was revived and was able to “sneak up’ on my character. He began garroting my character from behind and my character stabbed him with his katanna with a reverse stroke. In short our characters killed each other.
The other player and I shook hands. And we worked on making other characters.
The only reason that situation ended well, was because both of our characters were successful. We both succeeded in killing each other’s character at the same time.
That’s the only time a player vs. player situation ended well for me. I think that in any other case where I have either been in a player vs. player situation, or I have DMed one people have gotten extremely competitive, and feelings are often hurt.
The hurt feelings often persist from one character to another.
In my experience player vs. player is a bad idea. It often begins to break up a group.
I hope this helps.
I probably have a different background and GMing theory than the rest of the posters here so bare that in mind:
I wouldn't worry it. Either the players will work it out role playing, or one character or the other will probably end up leaving the party (and thus the player starts a new character).
I've played in many games (in many systems) where these sorts of things come up regularly. The best I've seen GMs handle it (and what has worked best for me) is to not push too many such situations (i.e. don't always be giving the evil character "special evil missions" or the good character "special stop the evil character" missions) and when it comes to character vs character conflict stay out of the drama and just be a rules lawyer for the match.
So long as neither player sees the GM as "favoring" one side or the other -- or as "pushing us into conflict" they'll probably be able to work things out in character in a satsifactory manner.
This leads to richer role playing and in my opinion not only a deeper better game, but deeper and better trust between the players (with each other) and the GM.
|
This isn't a guaranteed problem.
There's nothing wrong with Players occassionally playing PCs that can be opposed.
But it's important to have the Players discuss, for metagame reasons, what makes their PCs tick. Have your LN Player explain, OUT OF GAME, what exactly his plans are. As a member of a LE branch of a LN Church, how does he see himself, in general, being a member of a party of good PCs?
And the only absolute rule the DM should lay down is that under no circumstance can PCs work against each other. Make the LN PC come up with a solution.
Is he perhaps interested in breaking from that particular branch of Zon Kuthon's church now that they've asked him to do something against his alignment (kidnapping is Evil, not LN)?
Is he interested in staging a "kidnapping" of the cleric of Desna only to stage her "rescue" by the other PCs -- thus becoming a sorta "false member" of the LE church, pretending to be part of them as a kinda double agent more "true" to Zon Kuthon?
Have all the Players discuss it in a metagame conversation and put the burden of solution on the LN Player.
He is the one with burden because he is the one whose PC is against the party.
I love this concept, and totally disagree with everyone here who said player vs player is a problem. It depends entirely on the players you have at your table. Some players get really pissed off at it, others thrive on it. The advice I can give you is make sure the players are getting allong and having fun away from the table, and everyone understands that there is the potential for opposition within the party going in. That is all that really matters. If some of your players are starting to get uncomfortable, talk with the offending player about making his character an NPC and creating a new one. Then turn that character into a great villian, and make him shine. That way the player feels like he accomplished something, and now the group as a whole can struggle against his accomplishments.
Is he perhaps interested in breaking from that particular branch of Zon Kuthon's church now that they've asked him to do something against his alignment (kidnapping is Evil, not LN)?
Is he interested in staging a "kidnapping" of the cleric of Desna only to stage her "rescue" by the other PCs -- thus becoming a sorta "false member" of the LE church, pretending to be part of them as a kinda double agent more "true" to Zon Kuthon?
Have all the Players discuss it in a metagame conversation and put the burden of solution on the LN Player.
He is the one with burden because he is the one whose PC is against the party.
This (mostly). Why would the LN cleric go along with this evil plan? Because she/he is lawful? I like the solution WER proposed, but it doesn't even necessarily have to be done out of character. If the LN cleric is conflicted by the request, she/he could go to the party and ask for help. Then the group gets to partake in the adventure and it includes roleplay to boot!
In short, since it's already an issue beyond the character creation stage, let the players work it out.
As an aside, there is a Keleshite cleric of Sarenrae in a party with a Taldan who hails from Cassomir in the game I'm currently running. So far there has just been witty banter between the two. It's added some roleplay spice, but it could very well have been quite ugly. YMMV.
Thanks for the responses everyone. Most appreciated.
As far as the LN cleric of Zon-Kuthon goes... yeah, he took the mission alright. Commited "with extreme pregidous"...
This weekend, I'm going to need to sit down with him before the game starts and find out where he plans on going with this. He still asserts he's being LN though, despite his actions and knowing that Evil characters are not allowed (which is where my initial "f-up" came in, by allowing him to follow an evil god).
But, as I said before the group has been enjoying the intrigue/interaction between the 2 clerics so far. I'm just now trying to maintain that edge between their (re)actions.
Who knows, I may have to ask him to start up a new character...
For my 2 cents the player versus player is fine. I've killed other PCs and been killed by them. It requires a level of maturity on part of the player to understand this is a game. Winning and surviving should never be inevitable. PCs are going to have conflicts, they may kill eachother (preferably in game), and that's life. Player versus player conflict can make the game more enjoyable so long as the players aren't emotionally wrapped up in their character. For the Dms part I'd say have them both make back-up characters (to help the players mentally detach for what may come ahead) and not be favorable to one or the other. Be the rules lawyer and let the players play their characters to whatever end comes from it.
Hmm, what other options might he have to responding to this request? If he's LN, what if this mission threatens (in his view) the stability of the church more than it would benefit it? Is there a higher authority he can speak to?
What about the PC carrying out the letter of the mission, if not the spirit? LN characters, especially of a LE faith, might twist the wording of the request to his (or his party's) favors.
Basically, the idea would be here to give the players some options where through some creative playing (perhaps even some mental acrobatics), the players might figure out an end run around this lose-lose scenario (a William T. Kirk or Third Option, if you will).
|
|
A NG Sarenraen and LN Zon-Kuthonian in the same party can work just fine while providing a lot of roleplaying opportunities as they spar over ethics and morality. They just have to find the right angles to work with.
My players, don't read:
The party in the campaign I'm running now has a NG cleric of Sarenrae and has allied with a LE cleric of Zon-Kuthon out of neccessity. This same Sarenraen has already had some interesting debates with an LN Hellknight, and everything is pointing towards even more complicated give-and-takes with the Zon-Kuthonian.
The angle I'm taking with that NPC is: Why are Kuthonites big on pain? Pain proves you're alive, that you exist. And it makes you stronger. Many Kuthonites believe Zon-Kuthon is Golarion's salvation in the face of threats like Rovagug, Groetus, and the daemons after he had his eyes opened by whatever he met beyond the reaches of reality. It's better to suffer and endure than to not be at all. Unfortunately the "good" faiths like the followers of Sarenrae constantly misjudge them. They'll come around eventually, and they'll be eternally grateful for their salvation in the end.
The question is: What draws the LN cleric to Zon-Kuthon? Why does he worship him? How does his approach towards Kuthonism make him LN?
There might be something there that could give him some mutual footing with the Sarenrae cleric.
Unfortunately, the kidnapping is the big problem. With clerics of opposing gods in the same party, it's best not to have their churches ordering them to do things that will turn the party against themselves unless the players are fine with this level of drama.
Give the Kuthonite cleric an out. Maybe the order came from a rogue element of his church that is overstepping its boundries and the safezone needed to keep the church itself safe and in good public standing(if they operate in the open) or well hidden(if they don't). Maybe the Kuthonite church ordering the priest to do this isn't the cleric's particular church; the PC might belong to an order that focuses on the LN aspects of Zon-Kuthon's nature, reserving any "Joymaking" for consenting believers rather than unwilling sacrifices.
There has to be a reason for these two people to deal with being around each other, and common foes will only go so far.