|
Playing the character and having it result in the character leaving the party is not always wronging the player. Usually it happens because the character design doesn't fit well, but other things like this can come up.
Play the character true and if it results in a new character then so be it, make a new character and play it true.
|
Having been in a similar situation myself, you are pretty much screwed OP. the DM is showing favoritism toward a cool fluff idea, but at this point, the DM has laid down the law and cannot back down without losing face. Most DM are unwilling to lose face and admit screwing up for fear of losing authority. The hurt and damage is done, and "Going along with it" is just going to let lingering resentment build up. It will eventually rear up like a hydra at a later date.
I seriously doubt this can be talked out at this point. Quietly and politely find another game.
As I scrolled by I read the bolded part as:
"It will eventually rear up like a hydra with a laser dart."
No sweat. Hydras aren't proficient with laser darts, and they do crappy damage anyway.
|
You're not in the wrong as far as Pharasma is concerned. If the rest of the party doesn't agree with you, however, your options will be limited. You could kill it or contact other Phasmarites for help; another option would be to talk to the other players about how you don't feel you can back down.
Talking to the party and explaining your predicament is fairly good. You are indeed playing you character all the way right, and are justified in your belief and actions. if the party disagrees with you though...I suggest a different tactic. Use divination magic, or go to a higher-ranked priest of Pharasma and consult with them on your actions, basically forcing the GM to RP their opinion of what you should do. If the GM states by proxy that your god is okay with you letting your party run around on a blasphemous being, then you're all good. Pharasma won't be angry with you if she said that she won't be, so basically, ask your GM...and out of game, explain your character's motivation and your belief in this. He is supposed to be the final arbitrator in situations like this, after all.
|
|
The OP's character concept has been this way from the start of the campaign. The ranger and the DM knew this and STILL went with the undead horse. So yes, it is the fault of the ranger and the DM and the OP is the one getting punished.Playing the character and having it result in the character leaving the party is not always wronging the player. Usually it happens because the character design doesn't fit well, but other things like this can come up.
Play the character true and if it results in a new character then so be it, make a new character and play it true.
The DM should not have allowed the horse true but the other players may have in game reasons that follow their character concepts(unlikely but possible).
Playing a character true is not the punishment(even if it results in the character leaving), playing the character as someone else directs is.
I know I'm waaaaaaay late for this, but here goes:
In this situation I would either refuse to aid the Ranger at all while s/he's still in possession of the horse, (it's me or the dog type thing) or let 'the gods' (the DM) decide by saying that you will try healing the horse, and if it gets hurt by it than obviously it's something evil and intolerable. I'd personally go with the first option first, as that makes more of a point, and leaves less of an opportunity for the DM to cover his tracks by house-ruling that the horse is affected normally by positive/negative energy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people may have skimmed over some of the most recent updates from the OP.
A summary.
He's tried talking with both the DM and the Player. He's offered to help locate/purchase and equally "cool" mount for the Ranger's animal companion. He's prayed to his god for guidance, tried to get help from his church, and has discussed things out of character with everyone involved.
The Ranger player has shot down any alternative options, stating that he thinks the undead mount idea is "cool", and when pushed, ultimately wants it because "he won't have to feed it". That is the motivation behind this, purely mechanical reasons, towards a rarely followed game mechanic.
The DM has stated this his personal opinion is that he won't just get rid of it, or swap it out, because he "thinks it's cool". He has answered the cleric's prayers with silence. The crusaders the church provided saw that the ranger had run into the forest and gave up any further pursuit. Out of character, the DM has stated that the cleric would fall from the grace of Pharasma if he let it pass, but he can just atone.
Considering the atone spell only works if the cleric is willing to rectify the wrong he caused (left the undead alive), clearly the DM is as unclear on the rules as he is on the veracity of the Golarion lore behind this.
As a kicker, the Ranger's friend who sides with him (a Sorcerer), was allowed to create multiple Cannon Golems, which were promptly used by the Sorcerer to attempt to kill the OP's character when he confronted them.
Without any additional input from other parties involved, I'm coming to the conclusion that the DM is not really adequately informed on the rules and lore of the game.
Although, since he basically gave him the catch-22 situation after he was called on favoritism (Sorcerer gets Cannon Golems? Ranger gets an Undead Animal Companion?), and all three are "on the same side", I'm getting the feeling this is more about ego stroking and pettiness than anything else.
I can't think of something the players or DM could say that could justify this stuff at this point, short of "he's lying" or "we are only joking, we take it all back".
.
My brother was in a game that had a DM that ran in an adversarial manner, but ignored most of the rules for adjudication, basically turning most situations into TPK or at least complete failure.
When my brother called him on the more glaring rules issues (such as asking to roll a CMB check for maneuvers, instead of just a random stat check or DM fiat), he was singled out and picked on with his pseudo rules.
He wasn't the only one.. the DM used a charm person spell to basically take the female player's character out of combat, and rape them off-screen.
Note that this was all supposed to be PFS too.
I told him to leave that group, or at least that DM, because going to those games were nothing but a headache for my brother.
He did quit, and he was much, much happier for it. He still gamed with the other players, just in other games with someone else as DM.
Unless there's something else going on than what the OP's comments have implied, I make the same suggestion here. Unless things change, it's not going to be fun playing with this group, or at least with this DM.
|
My brother was in a game that had a DM that ran in an adversarial manner, but ignored most of the rules for adjudication, basically turning most situations into TPK or at least complete failure.
When my brother called him on the more glaring rules issues (such as asking to roll a CMB check for maneuvers, instead of just a random stat check or DM fiat), he was singled out and picked on with his pseudo rules.
He wasn't the only one.. the DM used a charm person spell to basically take the female player's character out of combat, and rape them off-screen.Note that this was all supposed to be PFS too.
Does PFS have a blacklist or something? It should probably be getting some use in this case.
I'm going to tell you a similar story I had.
I went into a game because the guy DMing was specifically allowing evil characters. I had never played one, and wanted to RP challenge. I was the first guy to join. I spent 2 days writing up my character (including a lengthy background story, along with the strict personal code he would follow, being lawful evil) and turned it in. The DM approved it.
A day later, the second person joined and wrote up his character in 5 minutes. A paladin.
Now this isn't necessarily a problem, depending on how the DM treats paladins. However, this particular DM believed that paladins should kill anyone who pops on a detect evil check.
Oh, and did I mention he allowed an evil character in the party, then allowed a paladin knowing that in his mind the paladin would have to kill him if he detected evil, and wasn't planning on telling the paladin's player that an evil character was in the party so he could choose to play something else?
Me and the paladin argued this with him before both deciding that playing with this DM wasn't the best idea. He was unwilling to compromise.
So what's the point of all this? My DM, just like yours, set the group up for inter party conflict, and was prepared to allow pc's to kill each other because he approved two characters that couldn't exist in the same party without it.
If everything is exactly as you say, then either your DM is looking to screw you over (which seems apparent from the followups), or he is completely incompetent. Seriously, dump this guy. If it's the only group in town, just go to The Tangled Web and find an online group.
Hell, if your free Sunday's I'll ask my DM if you can join my group. We just lost a guy. (No guarantees, natch) :P
Talking to the party and explaining your predicament is fairly good.
If the GM is doing his or her job right, the OP's character should not have to do this.
Worshipping Pharasma isn't a lifestyle choice. The cleric has sworn to purge abominations -- not avoid fatty foods. The reason why your cleric has powers in the first place is because you worship Pharasma, AND PHARASMA IS A GOD.
If a Pharasman cleric starts trotting around alongside Frankenstallion, then PHARASMA SHALL NOT SUFFER SUCH INSOLENCE. The cleric immediately loses all cleric powers.
So yeah: let them have their nifty undead horse. Now the lazy ranger won't have to (heaven forbid!) hunt to feed his mount. But in the meantime the party is down its healer and buffs. THIS is the actual choice facing the party, or at least it should be -- that is, if the GM were doing his or her job.
But it sounds like the GM isn't. The GM thinks the gods don't exist in your gameworld; that they're merely the stuff of superstition. Or worse: the gods are not an important consideration at all -- simply an occasion to determine the domain powers you can list on your character sheet. So where exactly do the cleric's powers come from?
The OP's GM may very well have a set of strengths at running a game and working with (some) players. But transporting the players to an alluring and internally-consistent world of magic and fantasy doesn't appear to be one of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not one person has made a "Mr. Ded" joke.
:(
.
.A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous... wait, he's dead. :(
The horse is a corpse, of course, or course...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha! Maybe the OP can annoy the other player by singing verses of "Mr. Ded," and tease him and mock him for the silliness of his roleplaying choice. That actually might work!
|
At this point, I would simply ignore the undead horse, if the GM thought it would be all right. Go ahead, just ask him next time you play if there's any sort of downtime: "I'll ignore the dead horse. Do I loose my powers?"
Buy a phylactery of faithfulness/ use augury / divination / commune, whatever. If you don't get a "You must kill it!" then just ignore it. If you suddenly loose your powers, then try to kill the horse if possible and then just roll a new character. OR, do as I do with a pesky (albeit NPC) character, and just wait until they are in a bad spot and then get rid of them. No need to start an open intra-party combat if you can finish things before anyone can interrupt you.
And after that, consider leaving the group -if all else fails and it doesn't feel fun anymore- OR roll a g+% d&%ned necromancer (or any other character. Have you considered demoniacs or diabolists?). (remember to channel negative to control undead at the first possible fight, and "accidentally" steal the companion from the ranger. Then ride it off a cliff. //just joking).
Seriously - I like to play my characters as I feel they need to be played, BUT, I also like to have fun, and therefore, I myself wouldn't mind letting it the horse live and let it be, unless the PC for some reason really rubs the fact in your face. PC's, even clerics, are still adventurers, and usually have bigger concerns than the color of their companions shirt or their alignment. It doesn't mean that you need to greet them with smile - go ahead and try to talk some sense into them. Just remember that you all have bigger concerns as well. Also... How often do you really need to count gold for feeding a horse? Or how many times in your games have you ridden a horse to exhaustion..? Just curious.
From an IC point of view - Yes, Pharasma would want you to get rid of the horse. Then again, Pharasma would most likely want you to continue on your epic quest to kill a lot worse evils as well. And you can't do that alone. So you need the group. So ignore the lesser evil for the greater good, for now. Even if she does directly say that followers "view putting the undead to rest as a holy duty.", it's still just an archetype, and not all followers are as fanatical as others.
And lastly, if you seek a "mechanical" or "rules view-point" redemption from what appears to be a s***storm brewing, consider discussing with your DM about the http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/archetypes/paizo---cler ic-archetypes/separatist archetype and converting to it. Perhaps the undead are not so bad after all..?
In any case, I wish you luck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>ahem<
Oh, the corpse of a horse
Is a horse's corpse,
And you cannot talk to a horse's corpse
-- Unless, of course, to reach the corpse,
You use a Speak With Dead!
Thankyew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen worse thread necromancy. Though I do wonder what ever happened with this situation. The whole thread just kind of "died" suddenly.
Also, I don't expect to get a response to this unrelated side-note but in the off-chance that I do:
Does PFS have a blacklist or something? It should probably be getting some use in this case.My brother was in a game that had a DM that ran in an adversarial manner, but ignored most of the rules for adjudication, basically turning most situations into TPK or at least complete failure.
When my brother called him on the more glaring rules issues (such as asking to roll a CMB check for maneuvers, instead of just a random stat check or DM fiat), he was singled out and picked on with his pseudo rules.
He wasn't the only one.. the DM used a charm person spell to basically take the female player's character out of combat, and rape them off-screen.Note that this was all supposed to be PFS too.
Agreed, 100%. Did your brother ever report this PFS GM? Because he probably should.
The charm person thing is unacceptable. When this sort of thing is done to a female player's character, on an obvious whim, it smacks of sexism, spite, and worse. Beyond that, if the female player was not okay with it or the subject matter (I don't know many who are) and the GM went on with it anyway then I would argue that it qualifies, easily, as sexual harassment. I'm fairly confident PFS has rules against that, verbal or physical.
Edit: Just so I'm not painted as having a "double-standard", it's not okay for this to happen to a guy either if he is uncomfortable with it. I just get more worked up when I see this sort of disgusting behavior towards women.
lol change your spell line up----self heals only--and heals for the people who support you. for the sorc who tried to kill you with cannons?--why heal him? same for ranger. after they are dead because they got no heals--problem solved.
the undead horse can not heal itself--channel against undead every chance you get. it is not like the ranger can heal it.
You're not in the wrong. The character is a priest of pharasma and killing undead is crucial to the deity and hence the character. Role-play it out. Destroy the undead mount or seek help from other members of the clergy. Try to talk it out with the rest of the party first but if that fail, too bad. In-party conflict may be rare but it does happen. Don't go easy on the undead because it puts you at odds wth your travelling companions who are alright with having a shambling mound of undead flesh with them.
The dead should not walk the earth, thy fools unleash forces you barely comprehend! You think you are using necromancy, necromancy only uses you!
Hakken, yep, another solution. Sinners get no healing, undead get exploded.
An oddity concerning the whole Pharasma hates undead thing is that a lot of various archetypes, schools, domains, etc that deal with undead have her listed as an associated deity. Does this not imply she is a source of said power?
An oddity concerning the whole Pharasma hates undead thing is that a lot of various archetypes, schools, domains, etc that deal with undead have her listed as an associated deity. Does this not imply she is a source of said power?
Which ones are those? I mean, the Death domain, but of that only three domain spells create undead, and presumably she'd want her followers to select the other domain power for those choices.
Kill the horse while they sleep!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't really say "Pharasma wouldn't want you to take those" if the very domains she presides over grant those abilities. You might be able to say that if you're trying to use multi-classing to gain those abilities and hers didn't natively give them.
That said:
Oracle of Bones
Raise the Dead (Su): As a standard action, you can summon a single skeleton or zombie to serve you. The undead creature has a number of Hit Dice equal to your oracle level. It remains for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. At 7th level, you can summon a bloody skeleton or fast zombie. At 15th level, you can summon an advanced skeleton or zombie. You can use this ability once per day plus one additional time per day at 10th level.
Cleric Death domain, of which, the Undead subdomain is a child.
You can't really say "Pharasma wouldn't want you to take those" if the very domains she presides over grant those abilities. You might be able to say that if you're trying to use multi-classing to gain those abilities and hers didn't natively give them.
That said:
Oracle of Bones
Raise the Dead (Su): As a standard action, you can summon a single skeleton or zombie to serve you. The undead creature has a number of Hit Dice equal to your oracle level. It remains for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. At 7th level, you can summon a bloody skeleton or fast zombie. At 15th level, you can summon an advanced skeleton or zombie. You can use this ability once per day plus one additional time per day at 10th level.Cleric Death domain, of which, the Undead subdomain is a child.
From James Jacobs in the Paizo Blog on February 10, 2011:
But while I'm on the topic of domains and subdomains, there's something else I want to talk about—Pharasma. Turns out that nonevil goddesses of death sort of wreak havoc on the domain system—especially if they're as stringently anti-undead as Pharasma is. Because pro-undead spells always seem to sneak onto domain spell lists when you start talking about death and souls and stuff. It's easy enough to simply not prepare domain spells that create undead, but it still feels kind of disappointing to me that Pharasmins "miss out" on some domain spell options. For those of you who want a more Pharasma-friendly version of the Death domain and the Souls subdomain... behold!
Pharasma-Friendly Death Domain 3rd-level domain spell: Replace animate dead with speak with dead. 6th-level domain spell: Replace create undead with antilife shell. 8th-level domain spell: Replace create greater undead with symbol of death.
Pharasma-Friendly Souls Subdomain 3rd-level domain spell: Replace animate dead with speak with dead.
And for the Oracle of Bones?
And for the Oracle of Bones?
Oracles are not Clerics, they don't have to follow the same rules.
From the Oracle class description:
Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs. While some see the powers of the oracle as a gift, others view them as a curse, changing the life of the chosen in unforeseen ways.
Either Pharasma provides only parts of the Oracle's power, or it is a curse placed upon the Oracle.
Yet given the bones domain's association with Pharasma I can totally roll an oracle who creates undead in her name.
You can, if you don't actually care about the RP behind it. You'd pretty much be a heretic.
Also, Pharasma doesn't grant the Undeath subdomain. It isn't in her list provided in the APG. (Just because a deity grants a domain doesn't mean they grant all subdomains.)
I feel for the topic creator. I was in a 3.5 game playing a paladin when the rest of the party decided that, instead of rescuing a bunch of kidnapped kids, they'd kill the bandits and then ransom the kids themselves.
I had to miss a session, and found out that in my absence they knocked my character out, and got left behind. Time to create a new character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP should just go all Rick Grimes on the horse. One tearful "I'm sorry Sophia" moment later, he'll show that he cared more about the animal than the so-called ranger.
I unfortunately created an Oracle of Bones and then chose Pharasma as her deity, thinking she sounded cool and not really reading her writeup/ideals too closely. After further reading I went the "it's all part of the curse" route and with a wasting curse it turned out thematically beautiful. Sadly the PbP only lasted three score or so posts. Didn't help that the very first roll I (or anyone) made was a 1 for an unnecessary Diplomacy check.....maybe I cursed the PbP...
I really liked the character, she has a great backstory. Not being able to use a bunch of revelations from her mystery would have completely sucked. And I would have taken it on the chin. For Pharasma.
Kill the horse and let Pharasma sort 'em out. If the Players of the characters get upset then they have issues. It's a pretend world with pretend consequences. In the real world they should recognize that your pretend character killed their pretend horse because it was a very real thing she had to do because of her extreme religious beliefs. Really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No sweat. Hydras aren't proficient with laser darts, and they do crappy damage anyway.It will eventually rear up like a hydra at a later date.
I seriously doubt this can be talked out at this point. Quietly and politely find another game.
As I scrolled by I read the bolded part as:
"It will eventually rear up like a hydra with a laser dart."
Look, I just want hydras with frickin' lasers on their heads!
ROFL Jesszilla
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Table manners come first, RP issues come second. Worry more about your relations with real people, and less about pretend problems in a pretend world.
Where are the table manners of the player who knowingly and intentionally purchased a showcase object that is diametrically opposed to another player at the table?
KILL IT. And I advise other people to kill issues like this immediately because if you allow it to pass, the harder it gets.
The GM is a total friggin' MORON to not let this become a bone of contention and trying to glaze this. In a role-playing game, having to play your character is sometimes a hassle... but there isn't all that backstory, and fluff, and proscriptions by deities so that you can GLOSS OVER IT whenever there is a conflict.
The other player at your table is basically pissing on your clothes so that he can drive what he perceives as a rolls royce. It's not about the horse hurting anybody -- from you perspective the horse NEEDS to go to the afterlife. This is the on-table equivalent of the party insisting that the party stew pot now include pork if a party contained a rabbi, or suddenly declaring that a Baptist Minister has to have an open marriage... it's not hurting anyone, right?
This is a game with religions in it, and those religions proscribe things. Ask your party if it's more important that jackass has a horse, or for the party to have a cleric. Don't crap like that devalues ALL the roleplaying everyone does... it's meaningless the minute it's inconvenient. If that were good, or even Okay... there wouldn't be any proscriptions.
I play in a party with a Paladin. Partying with a Paladin is a Headache... and OFTEN in fact, because they are constantly needing to assert their code. Part of the dynamic at the table is negotiating or justifying what the paladin is forsworn not to do... for example, we recovered objects from a false-tomb that belonged to, but were lost by a church. It wasn't even his religion, but instead of divvying the loot (which was OBVIOUSLY from a game perspective loot for the adventure ahead) the paladin INSISTED we return it to the church as otherwise it would be theft. It was a tense moment, but we went along with the paladin -- because the time to raise objections about proscribed behaviors is at the start of the adventure or when before that character is introduced. We got to keep the stuff anyway, but the point is we didn't have a problem with OUR character proscriptions, and the game actually dictates that they don't either.
Your friends are being dicks. This is no better than trying to wedge an evil character into a lawful good group, or adopting a recurrent strategy of starting forest fires to flush out enemies in a party with a Nature Druid.
Bottom Line: KILL THAT MOTHER-FRIGGIN' HORSE!!!!
Then buy him a nice warhorse to make up for it (that was a good idea) and tell him you'll be happy to ANNIHILATE any other undead accessories that he subconsciously fears might corrupt him.
Whether your friends bend on this or not, you're TOTALLY in the right. They might as well have asked a Cleric of Desna to worship Lamashtu. That horse is a TOY... they are asking you to crap on your character's IDENTITY. screw that.
Honestly -- don't walk from the table, though. Your friends should understand and if somebody needs to blink it SHOULDN'T be you.
Kill the horse. If he gets another horse, wait for the opportune moment to kill that one too. If they really want to be jerks and establish a pattern of sanctioning the undead -- maybe he should find himself short of healing... or who knows, maybe he needs to hug it out with the lady of graves herself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just remember, you're under no obligation to use any of your abilities or powers for the betterment of the group as long as that abomination remains with the group.
Settle it by offering to get a new mount for the player, be diplomatic about (Look, since I'm destroying your mount, I'll buy you a new one.) and if that doesn't work, default to the old fashioned:
"Wow, you're in pretty bad shape. That thing really messed you guys up, what with the damage and ability draining and all. What? Healing? Yeah, I could, no problem... So uhh... how's that horse situation working out? Because Pharasma and I had a chat and it seems that when you piss my goddess off and spit in the eye of my faith, healing becomes a bit difficult for me to justify."
Pharasma would probably not like the idea of your party, knowing how you feel about undead, blatantly spitting your face like that. Simply refuse divine assistance until the situation is resolved.
Were it me, frankly, I'd not even ask. The thing would have been dead (again) the moment the party let their guard down. If they want skewer me for it, so be it. As a Cleric I'd be ready to fight, and die, for what me and my Goddess stand for. I may not win, but best bet at least one PC is coming with me to the afterlife.
I'd try to coordinate with the GM if you're going to kill it. Work out something flashy with chanting, winds, intimidation checks etc to amount to basically a disintegrate/banishment type spell.
If the OP still hasn't resolved the situation four months after making this thread then repeating the advice of the last five pages isn't going to change anything.
But, what would we squabble over then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, what would we squabble over then?
Russia. It gets seven extra men a turn.
Same way, I ignore the fact that.....the Death Star could have just blown up Yavin, which would have jacked that rebel base all to hell. But,....meh. Doesn't bother me.
Ok, sorry I know it's off topic but... Spanky started it. They plainly state that the reason they have to go around Yavin is because it's a gas giant. They can't just blow it up and they can't see through it to fire a laser through it, they'd be shooting blindly.
Now, as for the overall TOPIC, I really think the problem is the GM and the players aren't respecting the OP. Rewriting the tents of Pharasma isnt the answer unless the GM did that, and told the player, from the beginning. Really I think the OP is just screwed if the GM is allowing this undead horse
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many people will disagree with me on here, but I've always said "If you make a character a specific way that keeps in line with the games rules, to not act entirely in character is to not play the game properly, due to real life reasons preventing this".
If people can't handle what your character would do and actively do things your character is against (after being notified of each character's concept at the beginning of the game), you have every right to just do it.
If you limit yourself, you won't become immersed in the game and you won't enjoy it.
When you're at the table, it should all be in character and if the people you're playing with are decent friends, they won't hold anything against you.
I'm not talking about team killing either.
The situation here is simple:
Through the Ranger's own selfish desires, he's decided to grab an undead horse to make his character's life easier.
Your character, staying incredibly true to Pharasma is against ALL undead. This poses a bigger problem for you, than having to find food does for a Ranger.
If I were in your situation, honestly, after trying so hard to reason with people, I would just kill the Horse.
To bring in an undead creature whilst being in a party with a Cleric who follows a Deity that specifically hates the cycle of life and death being disrupted, should have SEVERE consequences.
That consequence is that he'd lose a horse and your Cleric shouldn't even feel the need to compensate, because you're "Clearing the scum from the World".
You're doing your job right and thinking of others. They're not.
I always play in a group where TK'ing is likely, but it's never usually present. The players all act in character, following their alignment the best they can.
By doing this, just like in real life, it takes a lot to push someone over the edge enough to make them turn to murder. If a team mate attacks another, conspires against them or does something in spite of the other character, there are no safety nets. The character's will act accordingly and if that does end up breaking out into a fight, or worse, a duel to the death, so be it. Both players have a fair fight because they're using the characters they made and whichever one proves best built would usually win.
With this in mind, everyone I play with plays with a discipline of "I will treat everyone else how I'd like to be treated in return". This ensures we work together, even if we don't all get on in or out of character and we have a much better experience.
There was a player who min-maxed his Charisma in a Kingmaker game I was in, because he knew how much my character wanted to be King and so the GM told him my Charisma stat so he could surpass it.
My guy was a Charm Cleric and he was very very bitter when the role was stolen from him, so he made this ingenious plan that would span two years in game to pull off, that would ensure the Sorceress would lose the position of Queen and allow my guy to take what he saw as his rightful place on the Throne.
Sadly everyone died before it could come to this, but I made my character based on a concept. The other guy made his Sorceress to steal a position from me, which the GM allowed and also stated that everyone hated Lelouch because he tells them what to do and takes lead (he was a Tactician who aids and supports his allies, telling them the best strategy) all of the time, not allowing others to do so and that the Sorceress who hid at the back summoning things all of the time and didn't say much to anyone, but was polite in the few conversations she had, was the way forward and why everyone (the NPC's of the game) chose her as their ruler, claiming that one comment in a conversation ruined it for my guy....
One of the other players didn't agree with the GM or the Sorceress' player, so had his character become Lelouch's most loyal ally. He was a Fighter and both he and Lelouch died in the same room, with Lelouch almost making it, but channeling just enough so the other two characters lived.
In fact, the Sorceress wasn't even there that session so her character stayed in the City. Lelouch named the nation, so when he died they renamed it, knowing he was so intent on calling it the name he gave it and they didn't say anything nice about him after he died, when he was the one who always saved them.
The GM ruled that the Worg's that killed him would only coup de grace him on the ground and not the other Cleric because he told them to murder each other (Murderous Command), so that was bad GM'ing too.
That encounter was CR9 for a just turned APL of 4.