an excellent and detailed response, but it's only one post up the thread, so I won't quote the whole thing.
I tried to answer your question broadly by saying, "Handle them in game the same way you would handle these situations in real life." but I see that I didn't really do justice to your question.
Here are a handful of ways I've dealt with PvP conflict:
- Stay in character - When Bob says, "I'll kill all the baby goblins." I reply in character, "What are you doing? Why did you just draw your axe? There are nothing but babies left alive." Bob is now expected to reply in character, turning his action into a discussion and giving other characters a chance to participate.
This is a mild little trick, but very effective. I've seen PvP start when a player says, "I'll do X" and another responds, "I'll stop him!" Partly, it's because they've skipped past the whole talking stage, and partly because that's when initiative gets rolled.
- Overacting - No, not overreacting, just overacting. Basically I do the same as above, speaking and acting in character as much as possible, but do it BIGGER! Basically what you're doing here is upping the roleplaying stakes without upping the combat stakes. Turn the situation into an argument instead of a fight.
Imagine the conversation above, but my next line is louder and possibly given while standing up, "Have you been possessed by the foul demons we battle? Put up your weapon before you taint our victory with evil from within!" or possibly, "Grognar is afraid of babies now? Are you afraid they'll suckle you do death?"
- Non-Combat Maneuvering - In a non-initiative situation, things can happen very quickly. It's a great shortcut, but it can be frustrating when things aren't going your way. If someone is going to do something worth fighting over, they likely declare their action, and you have a brief opportunity to jump in before it's too late. But that doesn't necessarily mean initiative rolls!
Bob, "I'm going to kill the baby goblins."
Me, "I move between Grognar and the babies, put my hand out, and say "Stop."
Now that my character is between Grognar and the babies, I have more power over the situation than when my character was in an undetermined location, but without initiating actual combat. - Teamwork - Direct the other character's attention to Grognar's bad behavior. Use any of the above methods, but with 3:1 or 4:1 odds in your favor.
- Drop out of character - Sometimes, rather than staying in character, it's helpful to take a step back and deal with the player. To continue using our example from above, I might say, "Woah, Bob, four of us are 'good' and one is 'lawful neutral'. What's with the baby killing?"
- Fight without the rules - Sometimes you really do want to play out a couple of characters fighting over something. Maybe Grognar has a +20 to intimidate checks and a scary reputation to maintain. It could be fun to roleplay a couple of party members holding him back from doing something terrible when he loses his temper. If this plays out in initiative rounds, it's more time consuming (and more resource consuming, healing up, etc.) and not necessarily any more dramatic or fun.
Obviously these are just a few examples. I could give a dozen more. But, there are a couple of questions worth asking yourself when PvP looks imminent.
1) Is a player being a jerk?
I've seen a lot of PvP started by players who are bored with the game or irritated with another player. Whether or not an action is "in character" sometimes it's just a player making waves. If that's the case, try to handle it out of character rather.
2) Is PvP starting because someone wants PvP?
This is the opposite of #1. (Not that you can't be a jerk and want PvP at the same time.) A perfectly calm and happy player makes his character do something to provoke PvP, possibly simply launching an attack, but more often some sort of theft or insult. Obviously this is fine at a PvP table, but at a non-PvP table, this guy may simply not fit in. Again, this is something best handled out of character, and when you start asking this guy what's up, it's likely that he has conveniently "forgotten" that he's at a non-PvP table.
I don't allow PvP. Plain and simple. I don't care how my players treat NPC's, but I insist they treat each other as if they are LG. No screwing each other.
In my games, alignment is thus based on how PC's treat NPC's, and changes over time. Some classes have requirements for alignment, so for those I tend to warn them before their character is about to change alignment outside those boundaries.
Works just fine, near as I can figure. Most people WANT to work together, and don't like the idea of ruining the fun of other people they play with. Therefore, they don't tend to chafe at the LG vs other PC's restriction.
Pvp is allowed, especially if there are serious alignment differences and one character wants to go evil and the others want to stop them.
Example given: sandbox Isgerian game. Lawful good true hero monk teams up with npcs to do the good quests, while the neutral rogue cavalier teams up with npcs to do evil, take over a city in peril and moves over to cold, heartless neutral evil. He must get ahead, he will sacrifice and betray people, manipulate the mob--very Governor walking dead in style.
The fight that eventuated was a really great one. Npcs dying in the snow, pcs under real threat, so close. Although the neutral evil new lord brought over twenty guardsmen, they actually lost because he got taken out early. Evil char was spared, after being robbed and lectured to abandon evil.
Evil later died pursuing the good party, taken out by bandits actually when he refused to retreat from a bad situation.
|
I dont mind it as long as the PvP makes sense, and both players are going to stay adults.
Example, had a player who had an ancestral weapon, his entire character's backstory was built around it, using the heirloom weapon trait (he didnt normally have proficiency). The scout, a CN character, scouted out a room full of rust monsters, and failed to tell the party about their capabilities (he had knowledge dungeoneering). When the fight was over, the first players special weapon was broken and almost destroyed. He hauled off and slugged the other character for almost getting his weapon destroyed, and it started a fight. The rest of the party just stood back and watched. It was pretty entertaining. In that situation, it's fine, b/c it's in character, and both players thought it was fun.
|
I've just GMd Masks of the Living God,
My chaotic neutral character turns around and leaves the room closing his eyes and shaking his head slowly in dismay as the paladin makes quick work of the baby gobbos.
This is how I role.
I find it depends on the group and the motivations for the PvP. When GMing, I generally tell my players that if I have to ask them to roll initiative on the fly (aka, combat was not anticipated by both players), it is going to far. If you are actively stealing from the party and impeding their fun, then I will probably shut you down as well.
That being said, I have one player who has created an evil PC who has been manipulating the party to do her bidding. I only allowed this after discussing with the player that I would require her to lay out hints that this was happening periodically, that she accept any fallout that occurred, and if I sensed it was going too far her character would leave the party and become a recurring villain. At this point, her character is no longer in the party and is happily occupying the role of party foil, and the party still has fun interacting with her (they still think she is one of the "good guys").
When playing, I generally don't have issues with scheming, again, provided there are good ways to detect it, it is not impeding the fun of the group, and it is not purely scheming for scheming sake. In 4E I played an evil cleric of Vecna who specialized in healing, and only wanted to go with the rest of the group because he thought they would lead him to important relics. 99% of the time he was a team player, playing the role of the group tactician as well as healer. His subversive actions were really limited to sneakily feeding the paladin cursed pastries made out of eladrin babies. When the paladin kept falling ill (aka the player couldn't make it to a session), and eventually a portal to hell opened from his stomach, the party blamed the warlock who was overtly trying to do the same thing. However, with a paladin in the party, and the fact that his go-to attack used necrotic energy, the party could have figured out what he was up to. In the end, I would deem this acceptable PvP. There were no detrimental effects beyond what the DM decided was the effect of cursed pastries, it was definitely possible to catch me, and the DM was able to even use my scheming to create a plot hook to increase everyone's fun.
Conversely, in a Skull and Shackles game I play in we have a rogue whose player has explicitly stated to the DM that he wants to continually screw the party over, and turn the game into an adversarial metagame. He suggested that he would start passing notes to the GM with nothing on them, just to get the rest of the players paranoid about him doing sneaky things behind their backs. The DM is pretty lax about scheming in general (she plays the evil PC in the campaign I run), but she put down limits on it, and has an attitude of "if you fail, and I will make sure there is a reasonable chance of failure, I will not help you". The added tension over potential scheming is something that is really unnecessary and uncomfortable with that group, as 2/4 of the players just want a fun cooperative game. I'm pretty sure it has only been prevented from getting worse because two other PCs have the well known stance of "kill first, ask questions later" when dealing with suspected foul-play.
At the end of the day the only real consideration I have for PvP is whether it will make the experience more fun. If someone wants to scheme and such for the heck of it, and it can result in party unrest, not OK. If the majority of the people at the table don't want to deal with the added tension of a scheming character, not OK. However, if the scheming is not detrimental overall, and can provide interesting developments for the DM to use to enrich the story, it is more OK.
With that, I end my overly long and rambling post.
Pvp is allowed, especially if there are serious alignment differences and one character wants to go evil and the others want to stop them.
Ah. I explicitly state that any PC who becomes permanently Evil becomes an NPC post haste. Neutral is as low on the good/evil axis as I allow. Those that have complained have been told that to play Evil correctly would start up severe PvP eventually. That is verboten. Thus, Evil is banned.
There is a richness and depth to the story that would be missed if players didn't (in-character) argue, and once in a while come to blows with each other. Anything worth fighting for (the quest, the goal, the story) is worth passionately believing in.
I've tried this in the past, with limited success. We can all think of times where another PC says or does something, and you know that your character realistically would/should not allow it. Do you role play it out or do you let it ride to keep the peace at the table? On one occasion, a highly conceited party member couldn't stop his jaw from flapping about, and my character was way past high boiling point. I threw a punch at him and tried a grapple to put him in a headlock. He responds with lethal force, casting magic missile. I mean, I could have power attacked with my greatsword if I knew it was going that route, but I didn't. Making the first attack roll, even for non-lethal damage, made me the bad guy I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil pcs can lead to a really good game Piccolo.
Alignment is dependent on the campaign.
My Campaigns tend to have Evil simply be a person willing to do anything to get what they want.
I'd never encourage PvP, but the rp and dice fall where they may.
This. Although I insist that in-game conflicts are not to spill into real life (or vice versa), if two characters are in conflict and the players are sufficiently mature I won't intervene.
never allow an Immature player to engage in PVP. they will gloat when they win and whine when they lose. makes the game session more Irksome.
There is a richness and depth to the story that would be missed if players didn't (in-character) argue, and once in a while come to blows with each other. Anything worth fighting for (the quest, the goal, the story) is worth passionately believing in. Thus players who really play their character's personality, alignment, personna are likely to butt-heads with each other from time to time. As long as this makes sense from a character and story perspective, and so long as the heated debate or brawl is relevant to the story, it tends to become an important part of any campaign. Sometimes great adventuring groups are forged upon the disputes they have with each other, like steel is tested in fire. With each incident, once attacks are being made, the GM must provide a fair opportunity for combatants to roll for initiative. Provided the GM remains neutral, and gives every benefit of fair play, and uses the NPCs, setting, or his own calm composure to moderate this player v. player conflict, the results usually return to equilibrium, and each of the PCs learns to understand the other. This happens all the time in movies where great heros sqabble before strengthening their teamwork resolve (The Avengers is a particularly recent example).
I'm torn on the subject.... mostly because I play with actual friends. I am all for some PVP bickering, arguing and potential strongarming... but it should NEVER come to lethal blows... (unless BBEG casts a charm or something...)
It's really a benchmark for all 'team' stories... Everything from Wolverine vs. Cyclops to Human Torch vs. Thing....
They fight ALL the TIME.... But at no point is there any REAL danger.
I THINK if I was DMing... and players actually wanted to hit each other... for that combat EVERYTHING is 'non-lethal' combat. Go ahead... smack each other around... but at the end of the day you'll be fine. It's not REAL fighting... it's just guys trying to establish 'alpha-dog'.
If players in a group actually pull weapons and TRY TO KILL a party member... they should be out of the group. I have a VERY hard time believing that any group would WILLING travel with someone who ACTUALLY tried to stab them to death...
That's just a railroad to insist THAT is swept under a rug....
Arguing is fine, unless it really starts to go on for too long. SILLY arguing in the midst of hairy situations is actually funny. None of that is PvP.
Now, somehow harming(poison etc), ratting them out to the NPC authorities, swiping from the party, killing fellow PC's, all that is PvP.
Evil alignments might allow for a good game every once in a blue moon, but the likely negative consequences I am leery of. Too likely to break up a group permanently.
Now, a PC temporarily turned Evil through some funky spell or curse? That can be fun.
Wait, what if the party did crimes (common), were a good or neutral party and a good party member reported their crimes? It isn't pvp, it is obeying the law and ensuring lawbreakers are punished.
Not following the party against the world concept isn't pvp.
I find that PvP is more trouble than it's worth so i try to discourage it as a rule
But sometimes it does still happen
You would kick someone out who (perhaps accidentally) did local crimes, or did them while drunk at the tavernaaaa (putting yours fists in the faces of the locals is not actually legit, sleight of hand is illegal all the time where property laws mean something)? Or you would kick out a lawful/good player reporting the party crimes?
Which one? I am interested in your clarification.
Dunno man. Either way, the player is deliberately hosing over the other players. If the majority of the group does unlawful stuff, and some lawful type joins but causes trouble, they obviously don't belong there. Logically, most characters would kick out the lawful type: ostracism. If the player decided to make it a habit, then that player is obviously trying to cause trouble.
Groups are often not singular in their will, so you may have a crim and the type to report crimes to the law (cleric? paladin? lawful fighter? good cavalier?) in the one party.
Now party against the world is likely to hold sway, us pcs against the npcs idea, but reporting some crimes in isn't pvp, it is a pc reporting a pc to npcs because of what the pc has done.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what happens when a PC is put in that situation? Like I said in the above examples, say the other party member is doing something along the lines of torturing/killing an innocent NPC. They're not listening to what you're saying to them. It's not a question of "talking out the nuances of loot distribution" or "clashing personalities", it's a question of "if you actually want to save his victim(s), you need to take the other guy down now."
Or when you're already locked in a highly dangerous combat with a dragon and a fellow party member runs past you to kill any of the dragon's babies that you hoped to save while another party member suddenly yells "get 'em before YOUR CHARACTER NAME HERE finds them!"
:(
You would kick someone out who (perhaps accidentally) did local crimes, or did them while drunk at the tavernaaaa (putting yours fists in the faces of the locals is not actually legit, sleight of hand is illegal all the time where property laws mean something)? Or you would kick out a lawful/good player reporting the party crimes?
Which one? I am interested in your clarification.
The first guy is primarily hurting himself. He might bring some grief onto the party, but its unintentional. I wouldn't kick him out unless his crimes were extreme enough to alienate him from the party.
The second guy knowingly hurt party members. Reporting a party member to the local police is a breach of trust. If my character found out about it, he wouldn't be able to trust the guy at all. And he wouldn't want to work with him.
Adventuring: a Mafia Journey.
Hmm, well I've got heavily into character, and followed through with an action that I didn't want to do, but which the character would have done. Seen another really vet player also do the same. Later he said something like it would be so easy, I wanted to do such and such, but made this choice instead for the character.
Mostly I'd agree with you though, but separating self and your desires is like a mid level rp special ability. Or its a feat, and not everyone takes the feat. :P
Honestly though, I think the worst thing I ever do in a game is crack goofy jokes. Never could figure out why anyone would deliberately pick on another player, but I seem to encounter these sort of players on and offline more than I want. I get the impression they just want to get a rise out of everyone else, however it's a dangerous game to play, esp in real life. Eventually someone is gonna clobber you for being a dick!
Agreed, so much so that I merged the lineage of the dick into my gaming world, as did another dm. Wherever there were cities, the dick emerged and assumed power, dicking others about. I had a ranger that had favoured enemy: dick, he had stumbled upon an underground shrine to the dick-slayers as a part of his backstory (like Conan in the first film, but with a lot more deciphering and understanding required).
He knew what he must do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Groups are often not singular in their will, so you may have a crim and the type to report crimes to the law (cleric? paladin? lawful fighter? good cavalier?) in the one party.
Very true. My paladin of Shelyn's attempts to reform the party rogue were, however, met with great enthusiasm from said rogue.
But this is a setting and game system where Good can kill Evil and it can be a Good action, even though I think we can all agree that killing on a fundamental level is absolutely wrong.
I think this is incorrect. Killing evil is not a Good action. It's killing, after all. It is, however, a justifiable action and often a necessary action to defend oneself and others. A truly good character understands that converting a foe is preferable to killing them, where it may be attempted safely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last Wednesday we had a session that devolved into minor pvp. There is a LG Order of the Tome, low wis Cavalier. He confiscates every thing we find, particularly scrolls. Our party is a gunslinger, him and my summoner. We found a scroll of summon monster 2 at one point. He deemed it unsafe and shredded the scroll. Wednesday we defeated a necromancer who had a book of summoning on her, a wand of cure light wounds and a scroll of something or other. I didn't bother identifying the scroll because I knew he would take it (which he did).
He made efforts to take the book and no social skills worked on him. This resulted in the npc we had along with us trying to stop him but he attacked the npc. Then the gunslinger attacked him but he ignored the gunslingers attack and readied himself to charge at my gnome summoner. Now, if you've ever seen a cavalier on a charge (I had just seen it kill the boss) then you know where this was going.
I gave him the book, scroll and wand, just like he wanted. The gunslinger, feeling the whole thing was wrong, shot the book, destroying it. So party wealth by level? Wonderful low thanks to the cavalier. It's frustrating but I role played it. I mean, I could have fought back, greasing the terrain in front of me to spoil his charge, or grease his lance, etc. But being mature and taking everything in stride is a better approach. Besides, now I have PLENTY of reasons to craft otherwise underused magic items like Bookmark of Deception and Bookplate of Recall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is fine, reporting someone to the police is a valid form of PvP, but I can't imagine a PC sticking together with someone who report him to the police. I would be fine with having my rogue reported to the police, if the other player is fine with my rogue trying to coup de grace the other PC in his sleep if he ever found out about it.
From a meta perspective: The question is whether its okay for one party member to actively work against another. You can try to do this subtly(poison in his drink, slight of hand to rob him, secretly tip off the authorities, etc) or overtly.
Is reporting a crime one of the PCs committed actually PvP?
Is failing to keep ANY secret truly PvP?It is undisputed poisoning your team mate IS PvP, but telling the truth as PvP?
You seem to be in murky water here.
If telling the truth is PvP then is thinking bad thoughts also PvP?
Where do you draw the line and why?
Are you going to suggest the GM enforce friendship between PCs?
This goes past PvP in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last Wednesday we had a session that devolved into minor pvp. There is a LG Order of the Tome, low wis Cavalier. He confiscates every thing we find, particularly scrolls. Our party is a gunslinger, him and my summoner. We found a scroll of summon monster 2 at one point. He deemed it unsafe and shredded the scroll. Wednesday we defeated a necromancer who had a book of summoning on her, a wand of cure light wounds and a scroll of something or other. I didn't bother identifying the scroll because I knew he would take it (which he did).
He made efforts to take the book and no social skills worked on him. This resulted in the npc we had along with us trying to stop him but he attacked the npc. Then the gunslinger attacked him but he ignored the gunslingers attack and readied himself to charge at my gnome summoner. Now, if you've ever seen a cavalier on a charge (I had just seen it kill the boss) then you know where this was going.
I gave him the book, scroll and wand, just like he wanted. The gunslinger, feeling the whole thing was wrong, shot the book, destroying it. So party wealth by level? Wonderful low thanks to the cavalier. It's frustrating but I role played it. I mean, I could have fought back, greasing the terrain in front of me to spoil his charge, or grease his lance, etc. But being mature and taking everything in stride is a better approach. Besides, now I have PLENTY of reasons to craft otherwise underused magic items like Bookmark of Deception and Bookplate of Recall.
Boy that’s simple: “Sir Knight, the gunslinger, the xxxx, and I took a vote. You are not longer wanted as a member of this party. We thank you for your past contributions and wish you all the luck in the future.” Then simply walk off without him. If he insists on coming along , dodge into small sewers and alleys or say “OK, we’ll just sit here in the tavern sucking beers until you stop.”
Last Wednesday we had a session that devolved into minor pvp. There is a LG Order of the Tome, low wis Cavalier. He confiscates every thing we find, particularly scrolls. Our party is a gunslinger, him and my summoner. We found a scroll of summon monster 2 at one point. He deemed it unsafe and shredded the scroll. Wednesday we defeated a necromancer who had a book of summoning on her, a wand of cure light wounds and a scroll of something or other. I didn't bother identifying the scroll because I knew he would take it (which he did).
He made efforts to take the book and no social skills worked on him. This resulted in the npc we had along with us trying to stop him but he attacked the npc. Then the gunslinger attacked him but he ignored the gunslingers attack and readied himself to charge at my gnome summoner. Now, if you've ever seen a cavalier on a charge (I had just seen it kill the boss) then you know where this was going.
I gave him the book, scroll and wand, just like he wanted. The gunslinger, feeling the whole thing was wrong, shot the book, destroying it. So party wealth by level? Wonderful low thanks to the cavalier. It's frustrating but I role played it. I mean, I could have fought back, greasing the terrain in front of me to spoil his charge, or grease his lance, etc. But being mature and taking everything in stride is a better approach. Besides, now I have PLENTY of reasons to craft otherwise underused magic items like Bookmark of Deception and Bookplate of Recall.
What an awful team-mate. Just have an in-character discussion and fire him from the group. Can't see the two other pcs and npc adventuring with such a character. Fired due to taking more than their fair share, destroying earned loot and assault on party members. If he resists, kill him, xp, take his stuff.
Boy that’s simple: “Sir Knight, the gunslinger, the xxxx, and I took a vote. You are not longer wanted as a member of this party. We thank you for your past contributions and wish you all the luck in the future.” Then simply walk off without him. If he insists on coming along , dodge into small sewers and alleys or say “OK, we’ll just sit here in the tavern sucking beers until you stop.”Last Wednesday we had a session that devolved into minor pvp. There is a LG Order of the Tome, low wis Cavalier. He confiscates every thing we find, particularly scrolls. Our party is a gunslinger, him and my summoner. We found a scroll of summon monster 2 at one point. He deemed it unsafe and shredded the scroll. Wednesday we defeated a necromancer who had a book of summoning on her, a wand of cure light wounds and a scroll of something or other. I didn't bother identifying the scroll because I knew he would take it (which he did).
He made efforts to take the book and no social skills worked on him. This resulted in the npc we had along with us trying to stop him but he attacked the npc. Then the gunslinger attacked him but he ignored the gunslingers attack and readied himself to charge at my gnome summoner. Now, if you've ever seen a cavalier on a charge (I had just seen it kill the boss) then you know where this was going.
I gave him the book, scroll and wand, just like he wanted. The gunslinger, feeling the whole thing was wrong, shot the book, destroying it. So party wealth by level? Wonderful low thanks to the cavalier. It's frustrating but I role played it. I mean, I could have fought back, greasing the terrain in front of me to spoil his charge, or grease his lance, etc. But being mature and taking everything in stride is a better approach. Besides, now I have PLENTY of reasons to craft otherwise underused magic items like Bookmark of Deception and Bookplate of Recall.
Exactly. Firing can actually get rid of "that character sure is a dick" problems. The new party roster is in, and you are no longer welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our warhammer gm believes one of our players is an incurable greedhobo, so in order to grease the wheels of his own plot he had us find a carriage on the road that had been obliterated. Among the wreckage was a man who looked EXACTLY like the greedhobo, with a letter that pretty much implied he was on his way to the town the gm wanted us to go to for the purposes of collecting on the remains of a family estate. Essentially 13 times the yearly salary for a roadwarden and a chateau in an affluent town... The idea being that a greedhobo like our guy couldnt pass up the opportunity to ride into town pretending to be this guy and take the inheritance.
First problem is I am a roadwarden and I play it like captain america. I never cheat at gambling and always do the right thing and try to keep our party's activities beyond moral reproach. (anything the party does that I disapprove of they have to hide from me so I can maintain my plausible deniability because in character I'd turn them in for doing something wrong). I'd be FORCED to go PVP either directly or through legal means to shut him down.
Second problem though wass the greedhobo isnt the daffy duck that the gm thinks he is. Daffy duck may be a coward, but he's a greeeeeedy little coward. Our pc might be greedy, but self preservation comes first. When he said he didnt want to pursue this plot hook the gm basically said you're not going to get any xp for this session because you're playing outside of character. You're my little greedhobo and you'll bite the bait i give you. He doesnt understand that greedhobo isnt greedy enough to subsume his desire not to be dead.
We decided to ride into town anyway since as a roadwarden it would be my duty to report the death of the man on the road, short circuiting the notion that our greedhobo would even have the opportunity to follow through with this story. Our gm simply thought the temptation to get the phat loot would be too great and that my 'paladin would fall' or they'd try to pull it off under my nose.
The gm asked me straight to my face if I was going to single handedly destroy the whole plot of the day. I'm like yep. Its not only in character for me, its in character for him, and the plot is what would we do. Not what you have planned. As a gm who thinks you're awesome it's your job to roll with it. This puppet aint got no strings. In this case PVP was sort of forced on us.
Yes, a truly awesome dm is not one who forces their way, it is one that can roll and roleplay with anything.
Good on you for standing up to the dm, although I have known dms to walk from the table when their railroad isn't followed. Tsk tsk tsk, a shameful display.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In most fantasy settings, especially those played at low levels, low-magic, and weak-empire settings... Murder itself has less consequences. There are no fingerprints. There is no 'social security' or anything tying you down to a region or nation. You can kill someone in one part of the world and even if someone sees you, if you escape far away, you'll likely get away. Even something as simple as sketch artists are less common. The concept of Might Makes Right is more prevalent, I'd say, in the generic dark ages / middle ages type of D&D game.
Well, if you read on medieval history, you start noticing that life is much cheaper back then. People murdered each other for nearly any reason, entire cultures warred with another for false reasons, like say the Crusades. You could sack, loot, and generally terrorize Irish churches as the Viking raiders did, and get away with it. They only quit doing so because the French finally started fighting back, despite the fact that the French weren't really French yet.
I read quite a bit about the concept of medieval law, and what was acceptable in society back then. Honestly, it would shock you. College students would literally riot and murder, loot etc, or their host town would, and it would never be punished/no justice. A raider band of mercs would terrorize the countryside for years, and then suddenly get pardoned for doing a brief favor for a local bishop, then turn right around and sack the countryside all over again. That's just a few tiny examples.
The take home point is that back then, might really DID make right, whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Check out accounts on the Schism in the Catholic Papacy/antipapacy with France vs Rome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Firing can actually get rid of "that character sure is a dick"...Boy that’s simple: “Sir Knight, the gunslinger, the xxxx, and I took a vote. You are not longer wanted as a member of this party. We thank you for your past contributions and wish you all the luck in the future.” Then simply walk off without him. If he insists on coming along , dodge into small sewers and alleys or say “OK, we’ll just sit here in the tavern sucking beers until you stop.”Last Wednesday we had a session that devolved into minor pvp. There is a LG Order of the Tome, low wis Cavalier. He confiscates every thing we find, particularly scrolls. Our party is a gunslinger, him and my summoner. We found a scroll of summon monster 2 at one point. He deemed it unsafe and shredded the scroll. Wednesday we defeated a necromancer who had a book of summoning on her, a wand of cure light wounds and a scroll of something or other. I didn't bother identifying the scroll because I knew he would take it (which he did).
He made efforts to take the book and no social skills worked on him. This resulted in the npc we had along with us trying to stop him but he attacked the npc. Then the gunslinger attacked him but he ignored the gunslingers attack and readied himself to charge at my gnome summoner. Now, if you've ever seen a cavalier on a charge (I had just seen it kill the boss) then you know where this was going.
I gave him the book, scroll and wand, just like he wanted. The gunslinger, feeling the whole thing was wrong, shot the book, destroying it. So party wealth by level? Wonderful low thanks to the cavalier. It's frustrating but I role played it. I mean, I could have fought back, greasing the terrain in front of me to spoil his charge, or grease his lance, etc. But being mature and taking everything in stride is a better approach. Besides, now I have PLENTY of reasons to craft otherwise underused magic items like Bookmark of Deception and Bookplate of Recall.
I have to agree, any group I have played with would, after one session with this character, read him the riot act and tell him to cut it out or find some other bunch of fools. In fact by letting him get away with this your characters are pretty much NOT being in character, just so he can play his as a Richard Cranium.
|
|
In fact by letting him get away with this your characters are pretty much NOT being in character, just so he can play his as a Richard Cranium.
This sums up so much grief that type of trouble causes.
"You know, I signed up on this campaign to play a good guy. Not someone that just shakes his head helplessly while another party member commits atrocities and victimizes people in front of him."
|
|
Reporting another PC to the police is an interesting case. Reporting another PC is certainly a breach of trust, but who's to blame? You for reporting him, or he for doing something that forces your hand?
It's quite possible that in the aftermath, one of you will be leaving the party, because you need some measure of trust. (Or you could have some melodramatic story where you re-establish trust, of course.)
This can also slide into PvP territory. For example:
You're a paladin, the other PC just committed a cold-blooded murder. You can't ignore that, so you want to report him to the authorities. Now the murderer wants to stop you from doing so, so maybe he tries to kill you. And PvP is happening.
So whose fault is it? The killer, for actually starting combat? The paladin, for the first open act against a party member? Or the killer, for forcing the paladin's hand? A little bit of all of those, I think.
In cases like this, it may be good to look at the group and campaign style as a whole. If you're in a generally mellow-nice guy, above board kind of group, you can't blame someone for playing a paladin who's forced to report murder. On the other hand, if the campaign is about a bunch of outlaw anti-heroes, why is there even a paladin in the group?
I suppose a party has a sort of moral center; the average or consensus of the whole group about what is acceptable and what isn't. Of course, not everyone is totally in sync; everyone has somewhat more extreme views in some direction than the average. That can lead to interesting discussions, nice RP.
However, if you engage in an act that's very far from the moral center, you come into conflict with the person who's on the opposite of the party's alignment-space. If the rogue commits murder in the mellow party, he conflicts with the paladin. I think the rogue started it by taking an extreme action first. The counter-reaction may also be extreme, and thus escalation ensues.
Consider that a party can have multiple ethical values it generally agrees on;
1) You have each other's backs
2) You don't force other people to break a class alignment code
3) You're united in your struggle against (...)
4) You divide loot in a fair (...) manner
5) ...
Now when the paladin wants to report the rogue, that's a clash of tenets 1 and 2. The rogue may feel betrayed when the paladin breaks tenet 1, but the paladin sees that the rogue started it when he violated tenet 2.
Whether this is resolved by combat is another matter altogether. The rest of the party also has a role in this; they can pressure one side or the other to either back down or leave the party.
There's also the question of RP vs. Party Play. I think you need to have both, in moderation. Don't let your fanatical RP of your own character blind you to the effects on party play; the paladin should be just and fair, but maybe he can also promise the murderer PC that he'll ensure a fair trial. On the other hand, you shouldn't have to sacrifice everything for party play; the paladin doesn't ignore what the rogue did just because he's a PC. The rogue should have thought about party play ("what will this do to the party, which has a paladin in it?") before he committed murder.
You know a lot of these issues people bring up would be solvable with a house rule my group uses. The player VETO: By simple majority vote you can remove any character from the party at any time. This tends to very quickly remove those characters that refuse to follow the path the group wishes to follow. Whether the criminally minded group uses this to boot the paladin or the good minded group uses this to boot a thief or murderer from their midst, it keeps group unity. And with a player VETO hanging over you then you tend to work more cooperatively right from the start even in character creation.