|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run plenty of RPGs with what people would call 'PvP' these days, and they're usually great fun. You need the right group (all good mates), and it needs to evolve organically (don't plan for PvP, but happily embrace it if it occurs), of course.
On the other hand, actual killing is really final. Why do that when there are so many other, funnier, options? We've had everything from tar-n-featherings, to unwanted tattoos, to dropping each other right in it with the local law, to being stripped naked and left tied to a tree, to... well, stuff I probably shouldn't mention on a family forum. But the point is to use the conflict as an opportunity for more fun, not as a way to stop it. If your group's geared up like that, then go for it... but actual killing is pretty damned boring most of the time.
IMHO, YMMV, etc..
pranks
I think that my character is going to go with sealing their "big stupid gobs" with sovereign glue.
|
|
Interactions with NPCs can be great fuel for this stuff too: e.g. you need to pretend your group isn't who they really are, so you get in first with the introductions...
Points to princess,
'... and this in "Oinker" - a sow I polymorphed and alchemcally endowed with a rudimentary power of speech...'
... at which point the other PC either has to play along, or blow the whole gaff. ;)
No. It wouldnt be cool. You seem to realise that. Deaths are messy on tabletop and really, there are things that you could do that'd be a lot more fun than petty pranks or outright murder. (Sorry but I like to leave this kind of thing to the pixies, not evil clerics of mysterious gods)... though now that I remember you're an alchemist, I think the soverign glue has some merit...
Betrayal hurts more than death. bide your time. Dont let the petty insults get under your skin (because it's just a really anticlimactic and lame form of conflict.) Maybe work with your GM here on your big turning moment. Some GMs are more open to this kind of thing, others want you to strictly take a backseat role, but either way... Do what'll be best for the story, and most fun at the table.
Failing that, bite back with some insults of your own. Let this airheaded princess know exactly what you think of her.
As a side note... You've told us your character's goals, but pray tell... what're your party hoping to accomplish?
pranksI think that my character is going to go with sealing their "big stupid gobs" with sovereign glue.
Ooh. I like this. Sounds plenty scary if you do it right. Seems fitting for a cleric of the god of secrets, too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing for over 30 years. I've seen PvP (in a game that wasn't specifically PvP to begin with) several times, and it's NEVER ONCE turned out well. In every case, it's been the result of personal animosity between players, not characters, and has made the relationship worse. If you think this is going to do anything but destroy the game, Robert, I'd love to wager any sum you care to mention against you. Yes, I may be wrong; this may be a case where you and your best friends are immersing yourselves in the game, and it won't spill over into real life...but I'd bet I'm not.
I've run plenty of RPGs with what people would call 'PvP' these days, and they're usually great fun. You need the right group (all good mates), and it needs to evolve organically (don't plan for PvP, but happily embrace it if it occurs), of course.
On the other hand, actual killing is really final. Why do that when there are so many other, funnier, options? We've had everything from tar-n-featherings, to unwanted tattoos, to dropping each other right in it with the local law, to being stripped naked and left tied to a tree, to... well, stuff I probably shouldn't mention on a family forum. But the point is to use the conflict as an opportunity for more fun, not as a way to stop it. If your group's geared up like that, then go for it... but actual killing is pretty damned boring most of the time.
IMHO, YMMV, etc..
Pretty much this. We joke around in real life--characters should be able to do so, too. Sometimes, when we have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Sometimes, when our PC does 100+ damage in a round, everything looks like a...
Hope the analogy I'm trying to draw here makes sense.
|
Has your group ever had this level of in-party conflict in the past? I'm guessing no, because you are asking this question.
Everyone may be saying they are fine with it, but that can easily change if their character ends up being the one which dies. If you do this, it's going to have a long term impact on the atmosphere of the game and could very well lead to the end of the campaign.
It's like the old firearms safety rule, never point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill. If you kill another PC, you need to accept that the campaign may collapse as a result.
|
|
Um, stuffDude, you have no idea what the dynamic at this guy's table is. You have no clue what kind of game they run, and, frankly, your pop psychology is ridiculous.
He already stated that a) all of the insults are in character, which means, b) we can presume the "I'm the most valuable party member" stuff is pretty much in character (easy presumption if you know how to get off the high horse). The GM already discussed it, the players signed on as long as it doesn't creep to other, non-involved future characters, and it seems like they enjoy a more acrimonious party dynamic.
If they're having fun, why should you care?
Because the guy came to the boards and asked for input...
Unless the only input acceptable is supportive then his reply is a perfectly justifiable viewpoint. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is a valid opinion of the subject.
I have gamed for a long time with a lot of different folks and I have never seen anything good come from someone playing an evil PC, precisely because something like this always comes up and someone's feelings get hurt.
|
OK. You make a character that is going to come into conflict with the other characters. Now maybe you made him first, etc it doesn't matter. This is a game where people play together. Either you should not have made this character, or you should have thought about a way to handle the conflict in the future without it coming to this. When you made him you should have already came up with ways that you could keep the party harmonious. Why you? Because you are the outlier. When you have five people playing together and it comes down to 4v1 the one is wrong. Is it always fair, no but you should have thought of that before playing a character that was going to get into conflict with everyone else.
Now you have a choice you should not have had to make. You can find a way to deal with it and bring back the party unity. you can cause more conflict and have this end with someone NOT having fun (Most likely because they got killed). You can drop this broken concept and go with one that will be more enjoyable for everyone. I only see one bad choice there.
... and if I may say so, the most valuable member of the group. Without me the story would not have advanced at all and many encounters have relied on my being there to prevent everyone from dying, yet those two continue to act as though my guy is a waste of space. ....
If this is true, don't start PVP, just don't save them next time. IMO anything else is a jerk move.
|
Maybe its just playstyles but if your "forbidding" PCs come to blows then you're metagaming because the players are friends. I hate metagamers.
I tell you of another incident, same player of the Barbarian (playing another Barbarian). Mid level characters and a new PC joins the group (regular player who got into the campaign late), first adventure in and the new PC dies from a monster attack/trap etc. The players discuss raising the new PC. The Barbarian argues against it because he just met this guy and he failed to keep himself alive (Barbarian was the tactitian) and he doesn't want to waste the PCs hard earn gold on Mr Unlucky. Now at the time I could see the roleplaying side of the arguement but the other PCs won out in the end and got him raised. (No hard feelings from either player)
It's a roleplaying game with individuals who kill for a living, have deadly powers and carry deadly weapons, its crazy to think that they wouldn't come to blows especially if they are of mixed alignments and it's not our style of play to have the "friends in real life" hang over the PCs head.
You could argue that the PCs would leave the group if they had different beliefs etc but that's just boring really, a PC vs PC fight is just awesome to watch and very, very rare (I've seen 4 in 20+ years of gaming).
Telling players to "suck it up" is great if you're playing with children but we're all adults here, and friends, who just wanna have a laugh and good time, so at the end of the day it's all good.
Reebo
|
|
Of course, the other thing I've seen with the 'screwing each other over' rather than the 'murdering each other' type of PvP is that classic situation where some NPC bad guy then comes along who is just so much a bad guy that all in-party animosity instantly falls to one side as they 'team up' to get the BBEG... they get back to screwing each other over afterwards, sure, but that moment of sudden, focused, shared goals and teamwork is a thing of beauty and awe to behold.
Or, to quote Wolverine when Hawkeye manhandles Cyclops in the original Secret Wars crossover...
'Hands off, Hawkeye! Cyclops is a jerk, but he's our jerk!'
... not to say that Hawkeye is a bad guy, but you get the point... ;)
your an alchemist start building an alchemical golem, and unleash it and pretend you don't know why it attacked. :)
I wouldn't kill them that would make your PC look like a spoiled brat baby. I would possibly play some pranks on them, or some joke gags. If they attack you then kill them but if you're going to kill them for teasing you then that would be a waste of time for everyone.
|
The simple answer is, its your group of friends, so you know best. However, if you have to ask the question you obviously have your doubts.
I have played with a few people who like to play evil characters, and often it makes things uncomfortable. You have to play from the perspective that in reality, your character would never adventure with this person, but as they are a party member, you have to put up with them, so you make the best. You rib them for their evil ways, some times in character, sometimes out, then eventually they try and kill you.
Even if they don't, you find yourself in difficult situations where you can't play the way you want to because their character is evil... If you tell them to stop doing X they don't, but you have no desire to kill their character. Perhaps the DM broached the subject because they had discussed the option of "would it be ok if that character did that again..." In reality, you would most likely go your seperate ways. After all, why does your character hang around with these people if they have no respect for him, and his only motivation is to kill them?
I have played some fairly boarderline characters, but there is normally a RP way to get people of differing alignments to see eye to eye. As I said to start with, its your group so you know best, but I have never seen a non-evil campaign work with genuinely evil characters, and having been on the wrong end of pvp feel if played out to death is never a good thing. I'm all for a fight between characters, but who wants their lovingly crafted PC killed by their friend?
Also, what characters are they going to make up and join with an evil character? Detect Evil crops up more often than you would think. Again, it just forces the other PC's into a corner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read too many of the replies as there are FAR too many for my patience, lol. BUT, here's what I did once...
Granted...it was not Society play.
I was a Cleric, far superior to the rest of the party, save the Pally who was on par. I had come into possession of a creature that wanted to be let out of a cage...we didn't know it's alignment or motive, but it was powerful and confined. We had a "key" that could let it out. There was a dragon in a near cave that wanted the key in exchange for leaving the towns people alone. My character did NOT want to free the confined creature, but everyone else did. I insisted time and again that the Pally face off with a Diplomacy roll to decide what to do. (the option came up multiple times to free the creature) I won every Diplomacy roll, and this subsided the issue for some time. The GM said though at a point that they could rebel against me and take the "key" and unlock it themselves if they wanted. They tried peaceably to get me to hand over the key but I told them they'd have to fight me for it.
so, the Pally and I dueled. I lost. he knocked me out and let the creature free. It destroyed the town, dragon, gold, and everything in the entire valley except for our party (minus the rogue who almost completely died). The creature then proceeded to possess my character...sending me into a coma for a week.
When I woke up...guess who I killed...
Good times ^_~
Ok. Since we're focusing on "Evil", here's how I have my players play the alignments in my campaigns.
Good is when you put society towards yourself
Evil is when you put yourself towards society
Lawful is when you bow down to society's rules (Which ever society that may be)
Chaotic is when you'd rather have a loose set of rules
Neutral in the good/evil aspect is when you try to balance importance
Neutral in the lawful/chaotic aspect when you try to balance your actions.
Using this perspective, we can still get the party going without having to deal with stereotypical evils and chaotics. Sure, the party has different views, but in the end, their goals lie in similar places (this is where backstory comes in), and they can have a drink together.
Hey Robert, I think there's no definite answer here. In the end, it comes down to: it depends on your playgroup. Some players will get offended, others will brush it off, laught at it and move on to the next character. It will be memorable to all, that's for sure.
I've been in a situation like this and in the end it worked out ok. I was playing a LN dwarf wizard in a mixed alignment party; we were in a typical plane hopping adventure and were taking orders from some pretty nasty BBEG who had killed my character's "apprentice" (another player studying magic). So, basically, my character just wanted out of that situation.
The tasks, however, forced the group to stick together, or they wouldn't be able to return from each mission; even a corpse would do. So, it had been considered by the evil members in the party, who were happy with all the rewards from the BBEG, that if someone tried to walk away, the corpse solution was a viable option. He wanted to leave, but couldn't.
To make matters worse, every time we plane hopped, there was a chance our alignments would change to the opposite one, and in one of those trips my character became CN. That´s when things started getting ugly.
One fighter in particular had been antagonizing my wizard for some time. So, when opportunity presented itself, I was ready. After one combat, they were the only two characters left standing. That's when I decided to take on him; so we fought to death, and I barely defeated him. When the other characters woke up, I just said the wolves had killed him. The cleric knew it wasn't true, but stuck with me, and that was the end of it. IC, it was a pretty tense situation that could have gone either way, but after that the fighter's player just built another character and we kept on playing anyway, no grudges or anything. We left his corpse behind and never got called back by the BBEG.
It was the only time I ever did that kind of thing, but it made a lot of sense and the DM actually agreed with the whole thing.
Just don't kill them in their sleep, there's no honor or fun in that. :)
"Is plotting my revenge going to lead to everyone having more fun?"
Perfect, wish I had thought of that. If you recall at the top I do say that it's an extremely lame, aggravating and selfish thing to do, I'm not totally unaware. I'm willing to chalk this up the impaired nature of interweb communication.
I'm not a mental case, I just play one in an RPG.
No comment on the OP (I don't know enough about the party / players) but one practical point... how many other PCs are there that you're not planning on killing? How will they react if, not unnaturally, they think they may be next? I've only killed one PC in my umpteen years playing (although I've let more than a few get themselves killed when they got stupid) and he had killed another PC. Offence being the best defense and all that...
|
|
Fascinating note Wolfthulhu, my current evil PC is actually somewhat of an peacemaker between the Good and Neutral aspects of my party that are frequently getting into conflict.
As a GM I have always hated players killing other players, in my opinion it ruins the game for the other players. Your game is broken and the above statement is a pretty good indication I am right. As someone with the alignment of CN and moving to the CE alignment, you would not be a peacekeeper. You would relish the chaos fighting party members brings.
On a side note, in the original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players Guide, yes I am that old, CN was basically the alignment of mental illness. I have never allowed that alignment because it is almost impossible to play. As for CE, I usually do not allow it in a campaign unless the player can give me a really good reason as to why he is hanging around with the party. These two alignments are not conducive to playing in a party.
|
|
Ok. Since we're focusing on "Evil", here's how I have my players play the alignments in my campaigns.
Good is when you put society towards yourself
Evil is when you put yourself towards society
Lawful is when you bow down to society's rules (Which ever society that may be)
Chaotic is when you'd rather have a loose set of rules
Neutral in the good/evil aspect is when you try to balance importance
Neutral in the lawful/chaotic aspect when you try to balance your actions.Using this perspective, we can still get the party going without having to deal with stereotypical evils and chaotics. Sure, the party has different views, but in the end, their goals lie in similar places (this is where backstory comes in), and they can have a drink together.
Close but not exactly accurate. You have good and evil right and even Neutral and Chaotic right. Lawful does not mean bow down to societies rules. Lawful means respect for order. That doesn't necessary mean societies rules. For example, a Lawful Good Paladin may not accept a law that says the king may abuse his citizens as he sees fit. The Paladin would be inclined to fight this "law"
I would kill them regardless of whether or not they were fine with it. CE people are like that, if you insult them be prepared for the pain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your character's acts turned him to CE. Put a little depth into it. Try to shrink you fellow's credit whenever you succeed in the AP. put minor obstacles in their way, craft a cursed item for them, plot against their lives along the AP and towards its end. Risk the party's ultimate success by delaying your chance on them till the AP's very climatic encounter. Then give your character the chance to redeem himself in the last moment (a la Raistlin Majere) or become yourself the party's greatest nemesis. In the meantime you can play the meek-repentant one so noone suspects. This would certainly be coherent with "teamwork play" while allowing you to develop you character as you see fit and it won't spoil the AP by risking it of an early termination.
This is, in my humble opinion, more consistent with role playing, stepping into someone else's skin, and there would be always space and time for your character to reverse sme steps in his alignment. Good luck and enjoy.
I'd make a new character. But that's just me; I don't really thrive on drama.
I would kill them regardless of whether or not they were fine with it. CE people are like that, if you insult them be prepared for the pain.
Just because all murdering psychopaths might be Chaotic Evil does not necessarily mean that all Chaotic Evil people are murdering psychopaths. Someone can be anti-social or narcissistic without murdering everyone who griefs them.
OP: Being as I don't allow evil characters in my games and our house rules expressly forbid PvP, I might be a bit too biased to comment objectively from a gameplay standpoint. Therefore I'll comment from strictly a roleplaying perspective...
Given that your character is prideful, I would tend to think that he'd be more inclined to gloat over his tormentors by making them acknowledge his superiority. If they are dead then not only can they not do that, but he risks exposing his secret identity.
Also, murdering them just sounds like a lazy solution. If the character is as intelligent as he believes, I'd think he'd find a more creative and satisfying solution.
From a roleplaying stand point, my opinion would be that you should not kill the other PCs, but find some other avenue of reciprocity.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PRIOR TO COMMENTING, BARBARIAN HAVE IMPORTANT QUESTION.
AM YOU CASTY?
THIS AM VERY IMPORTANT.
|
Oh no, killing won't be a problem at all. What I'm more worried about is whether or not it's a good idea. You seem to think it isn't from your earlier response.
To answer your earlier question, I'm friends with everyone at the table and have no problems with any one outside of what happens on the table between the characters. Heck, the person who started the in character insults is the sweetest person in the group IRL (and a wonderful baker to boot!). This is just an issue of characters, not of the people behind them.
I don't think Norgorber is against pride in particular. If you can find something to contradict that I'd love to see it so I can find some sort of in character delusion as to why that wouldn't apply to him.
Outright killing might be a problem. It could lead to outright war. If your first post is correct and you carry the story and saved the party a few times, simply be too slow to save them next time their in trouble and let them die.....
Player-killing is like incest.
It's a forbidden fruit that if you try hard enough you can convince yourself it's fun, but really no matter how you go about it sooner or later it's going to be something everyone involved regrets. Stick your sword where it belongs.
Player-killing is like incest.
It's a forbidden fruit that if you try hard enough you can convince yourself it's fun, but really no matter how you go about it sooner or later it's going to be something everyone involved regrets. Stick your sword where it belongs.
Are you against incest if they're not related by blood and they're hot? Just wondering that's all.
The facts are out there, what do you, O possible reader, think? Do you think it's okay to kill PCs under those circumstances or not?
It may make sense, in the game, it kill these characters. You may even want the PCs dead in real life too.
However, doing so (whether you're successful or not) will probably be the end of the campaign as you know it now. No matter what anyone says, there's almost always hard feelings, especially if the other players are invested in their PCs (sounds like it) and the players have "strong personalities" (sounds like it). You possibly even risk the loss of your gaming group.
The mature way to handle it is to talk to the GM and players outside the game about it, and ask them how you should handle it. Tell them the PVP conflict might ruin the campaign. Tell them they need to tone it down or you should all make different characters or maybe even play a different campaign (that should freak the GM out enough that he should want to control this).
If they don't care and continue, I guess you can execute your plan since no one cares about the campaign or gaming together anyway. Too many egos in the room.
I actually had my game today and spoke with the DM afterwards about PvP and he said he didn't blame my alchemist in the least for wanting to do it. We had a nightmare of a session where the two characters (Human Cleric of Pharasma 4 and Elven Evoker Wizardess 3 - the princess) my guy was having problems with kept making bad decision after bad decision during our fight with the BBEG, which nearly resulted in a TPK, but was narrowly avoided by the two other party member (a blind human monk of the four winds 4 and gnome celestial sorceress 4). I was laregly useless due to terrible rolls.
After a long discussion about the pros and cons of PvP I decided to back off from it. Really it just makes more sense that the alchemist would want to make them as miserable as possible rather than outright kill them. His pride might demand it, but he's smart enough to resist his natural impulse. Plus he's financially involved with their success at the moment and bringing on different people would just be a whole other set of problems. Besides there was a well established tradition of pranking in our group, but it fell by the wayside after the two most effective pranksters moved away a while back. It'll be nice to bring that back.
The big reason is that the two players involved aren't well versed in the mechanics of the game so creating a new character would be a big ordeal for them and would halt the game. I'm pretty sure they'd be fine with the PvP as they're both effective roleplayers and big on in game motivations (which is why the conflict escalated in the first place, we all got really into character), but it would just be more trouble than it's worth for me to get a moment of joy bumping off an annoying PC.
Basically what I've pulled from this is that it can sometimes lead to fun with the right kinds of people and can ruin it for others. There were some good points for both sides of the argument, but it basically all comes down to knowing your group, which is why I decided to leave off it.
And seriously, if you (you know who you are) don't like what I've said that's fine, but cut the junior leauge psycho-babble. You know next to nothing about me.
To answer some earlier questions, I was planning on having my guy either hiring assassins to do the job or getting them each alone and killing them quitely and making it look like the Whispering Way did it. I was not planning on an open duel style battle where everyone would see that my guy was petty and evil and not just petty and values neutral as he claims. But it's a moot point really.
Sometimes when people don't like other people's PCs (or the player in real life), they insult in game. It could be a subtle hint that they don't want their predominantly good party to have an evil character in it.
If that's not the case and the intention from the beginning of the campaign was to have it devolve in PVP where everything makes a new EVIL character to match Robert's evil PC (if the campaign doesn't come to a screeching halt), then continue.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. I don't know how many more times I can state it, this is all in character. We've been playing together over 6 years and when someone doesn't like another player's character they're vocal about it out of character (very vocal, in fact) and this is not the case. This is not some subtle hint from a shy player, it's in character drama from people who take the role-playing aspect of the game seriously. And the party isn't mostly good, it's all neutral except for me. No one has ever seen me do anything evil; the friction has nothing to do with alignment differences between characters. Just the way in which they choose to handle it is different.
Yeah yeah, I've seen people sign off on stuff before, but it's guaranteed to ruin the campaign and perhaps more.
Again with the assumptions. Unless you've got precognative powers I doubt that you can garantee anything about my gaming group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest asking your DM privately to adopt your current character as a recurring runaway antagonist, and make a new character.
I think the shortest answer in the thread is actually the best. Have your Pc become an enemy in the hands of the DM and create a new character yourself. This way the other PCs will see the consequences of their actions and you still get to enjoy creating a very memorable NPC, certainly if the DM succeeds in making him a recurring character.
Yeah yeah, I've seen people sign off on stuff before, but it's guaranteed to ruin the campaign and perhaps more.Again with the assumptions. Unless you've got precognative powers I doubt that you can garantee anything about my gaming group.
Well, we can only relate to you our experiences. I've seen people sign off on PVP and regret it later. Over the years I've seen numerous campaigns fizzle because of it.
The only time I've ever seen it be "healthy" is when the guys were all there to "mess with each other" basically, the campaign story was just a backdrop.
I've seen people play pranks and do dirty little cosmetic pranks to other PCs before (such as soiling someone's clean clothes with Presitgation). If the player is playing in role, it almost always comes to blows. I suppose if you guys like doing that to each other, it's ok, it's just not the type of game I'd want to play.
Really, if you were playing a CN / CE PC (that needs the other PCs to succeed) and he was actually intelligent, he would just insult and snipe back at them, and do it better. That's how you'd roleplay it while still keeping party cohesion.
Anyway, that's my experience, take it or leave it. If you already know better, don't ask next time, just do it.