Two of the most memorable moments in my 3.5 years were PvP moments - but planned 'PC turning villain' situations resulting in no direct player deaths.
Ellis Mirari, you seem pretty stuck on the idea that the characters involved in your scenarios are going to inevitably resort to violence.
I do not think that is a fair assumption to make.
The Paladin wants the accused to live so he can be sure of any guilt before a punishment of death is delivered, and the rest of the Paladin's party want to just get the death-dealing over with because they are convinced that the accused is guilty.
Whether those people are NPCs or PCs does not affect that the Paladin does not wish to see his party members harmed or killed, and his party members do not wish to see him harmed or killed either - each wants to convince the other that their course of action is right, but none of those involved are sociopaths lacking the conscience to prevent their thoughts turning from "I'm going to explain to my good friend Gary how he is wrong and I am right," to "I'm going to kick the crap out of my good friend Gary, kill this guy even though my good friend Gary asked me not to, and then the two of us will keep on being friends," or "Gary disagrees with me about something... I guess we aren't friends like I thought we were, so I should kill him, kill this guy he is trying to stop me from killing, and then go on about my life."
First off, I shouldn't have to explicitly state that the characters have a verbal discussion first. Obviously there's going to be dialogue. But here, as in life, you can't often just argue away someone's moral position especially in a life-or-death situation. Assume here that both sides feel strongly enough about it that words have failed to convince them.
Second, PvP =/= violence, As I said in my last post. Using spells, non-lethal combat maneuvers, and stealing from party members is just as much PvP as "kicking the crap out of Gary". If one of these happens, the "No PvP rule" has been broken. The above scenario can end in two ways:
1) The players treat the problem as the way they would if the paladin were not controlled by a player (subdue him in some fashion, which is PvP)
2) The players have a meta-argument and are then forced by the rule to act out-of-character; someone backs down even though their character would never and has never acted that way before.
And Gary being a "good friend", as I've said, is not relevant. Maybe the NPC is just as good friend as they are but the world is at stake and the benefits of the many outway the benefits of the few. Maybe the group has only been together for one or two adventurers they were hired to do and they don't actually know each other that well. Focus only on the scenario, not the specific relationship you imagine would be present. The specific circumstances do not matter but if I have to keep listing circumstances to nullify arguments I'm not trying to make, I will: The paladin is not their good friend. All characters, NPC included, know each other just as well. There.
I get that, but you're still trying to handle it only on the in-character level. (At least I think you are. I assume the player isn't actually willing to die for this.) It's a metagame problem, since the players have agreed not to do this. Find a way, as players not as characters, around the conflict.
That's the point, though. Before this the only examples put forward by supporters of blanket No PvP rules were ones that were obviously problem players doing things for selfish reasons: rogues stealing from the party, PCs getting into fights because they're bored, etc.
The first point of my argument was that a no PvP table will still experience situations that require PvP to be resolved without metagaming. Pres Man seemed to be arguing that this was not true, but it is. If the PCs the only difference between two scenarios is a PC is on the opposing side in one, and the other PCs act differently, the No PvP rule has forced players to break character, which I believe is a bad thing. If you don't care about this sort of metagaming than I'm not sure why we're discussing this.
On a side note, from my experience, I think a "meta-solution" would just create more resentment than a PC fight.
Think about it. The game is grind to a halt as the players argue over what the better choice is for god-knows-how-long. That happened a lot in my old high school group. In this case, I can imagine the argument not coming to a satisfying conclusion: if it didn't matter very much to the players, it wouldn't have even come to this. Instead of getting the chance to earn the outcome he wanted or the satisfaction of his character fighting for what he believes in, it comes down to a (to him) unfair majority rules or GM-says-X-So-Let's-Move-On decision.
The paladin, and his player, have effectively lost their free will.
Again, I'd put it more as giving the players, as well as the characters, a chance to compromise, rather than "losing their free will".
I suppose situations could come up where no compromise is possible even without somebody being a jerk, but they're far rarer than situations where you get PvP because somebody's being a jerk. (In or Out of character). It's certainly possible to come up with hypothetical situations like that, but those are the like the various hypothetical situations where all the paladin's choices lead to falling: The solution is to avoid them. Much of that lies on the GM.
Now we're limiting the story possibilities of a game as WELL as limiting how naturally a character can respond to a situation.
And frankly, if the players are going to let the game grind to a halt and argue for god-knows-how-long, that probably shows the same kind of immaturity that leads to problems with PvP.
I disagree. A mature group can have a debate last for long periods of time. There might not be a single raised voice. None of that changes the fact that the game has stopped, when simply letting them solve the problem in-character could have resolved it in a matter of minutes, or prevents people from being resentful of a situation. Mature people still experience emotions.
But is this not, without question, a removal of arguably vital player volition?
Yes, it's a removal of player volition.
No, it's hardly "vital".But, on the other hand, if players have made clear that their characters' mutual dislike is completely unrelated to their real-world relationship (and are mature enough to handle with graciousness any fallout),
That's quite the 'if'.
Though, having a good discussion before the event occurs, and people readily agree that there wouldn't be any fallout... then sure - no problem.
Given that, I can't imagine anyone ever saying "NO NOT EVER".
But saying, "No, never," is to me too autocratic and arbitrary.
Opinions?
Meh. I suspect those who say such things know their groups far better than anyone on the internet would ever hope to.
|
I find it hard to understand why two characters that hate eachover enough to kill would stick together in the same group. The most probable action would be to leave the group long before it came to blows. If i went on a dangerous mission i sure as hell wouldn't want mortal enemies around.
Because your on a quest to save the world? Or a city? Or some other reason. Just because your together doesn't mean you agree with everything one's other companions do or believe.
Sometimes things build over time and eventually come to a head. Small things add up over time, like rocks in a bucket. one or two isn't a problem. 20 sink it.
Its what happened in my party. the cleric and warrior priest vs the mage and bard. Neither was bad, but eventually everything comes to a head over one action- the "poisoning" and murder of the NPC and the callous disregard afterwards led to what could have been a split in the party(if the DM didn't step in). No player was mad at each other, but one's character's beliefs and actions dictated certain responses- he goodly priest types wanted to arrest the mage and bard for their actions(being at the time they had police powers). The bard and mage would have none of it.......conflict was heading that way.
Its not hate that necessarily begets conflict. Although we were a pretty disfunctional group due to various beliefs. In real life I doubted we'd have stayed together.
|
|
That's a part of it too. There's usually metagame pressures pushing you to stay together. (Leaving the party usually means leaving the game/playing another character and I want to stay and keep this character.) But somehow that's OK, but using the same kind of metagame logic to keep from killing each other
But somehow it's bad to use the same kind of metagame logic to keep from killing each other.Or even the same in-game logic: If I have to work with these (goody-two-shoes/moral reprobates) in order to save the world, doesn't that mean I shouldn't try to doesn't that mean I shouldn't try to kill them?
Correct. The CN barbarian living in the city has different interests as the 2 cleric types, who also have difference with the fame whore bard and the selfish mage.
But when danger threatened the city or any of the party's interests or NPC's.....we worked like a fine tuned machine. However, down time wise we were VERY different. With different interest and goals. Adventuring was the way we paid the bills and gained power to help our interests along(gaining fame saw the bard adopted in a noble house. Gaining fame and notoriety saw the crime lord ease off the cleric's interest in helping the poor and so on).
We didn't necessarily want to kill each other. But it was going to come to blows when the arrest was going to happen due to other party's actions.
Saving the world may mean you have to work with them. But on the other hand, you might have to put them down if they become a problem or threat. It really depends.
Again, I'd put it more as giving the players, as well as the characters, a chance to compromise, rather than "losing their free will".
I suppose situations could come up where no compromise is possible even without somebody being a jerk, but they're far rarer than situations where you get PvP because somebody's being a jerk. (In or Out of character). It's certainly possible to come up with hypothetical situations like that, but those are the like the various hypothetical situations where all the paladin's choices lead to falling: The solution is to avoid them. Much of that lies on the GM.
Now we're limiting the story possibilities of a game as WELL as limiting how naturally a character can respond to a situation.
Yes. We've limited the story possibilities of the game. We've said it will not include PvP. That's sort of implicit in the concept.
When you agree to not do PvP, you agree to remove the story possibilities of PvP.That's not a bad thing, if you don't want PvP.
I get that you do and I don't have any problem with that. I've had fun game with PvP. I've also had some pretty messy and frustrating games with PvP.
I've also had fun games without it. Which somehow didn't wind up in weird impasses where players are robbed of free will.
Well that's that, then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, on the other hand, if players have made clear that their characters' mutual dislike is completely unrelated to their real-world relationship (and are mature enough to handle with graciousness any fallout), they've been on a collision course for some time, and/or come to blows (whether literal or figurative) over something fundamentally insoluble due to their philosophical differences or conflicting objectives—they can't both marry the same (wo)man, to use a simplistic example—is it truly never appropriate to let them resolve the issue between them?
But you see- the players are CHOOSING to make their PC's have "mutual dislike". It's the whole "it's what my character would do!" "Richard" excuse. Yeah- but who decided YOUR character was a CE murdering fellow PC's in their sleep kind of guy?
Many many times the "PC grudge" is rooted in something OOC, anyways.
Yes, it can be fun and cathartic. But it also has the risk- even among mature players- of being something that break up a campaign and even a friendship. The risk is not worth the reward.
It's better to head off such grudges before they get to that level. Or, as in one game, have it settled by a pie fight or Pun fight.
|
|
You are missing a very important part of a "No PvP" campaign style - characters which would clash as drastically as you describe in the scenario as to only see the two outcomes you have mentioned are not possible at all.
You don't say "No PvP, but build any style of character with any attitude that you want," and create this mandatory-out-of-character-behavior situation - you say "No PvP, so make characters of similar desires and ideals so that no problems arise during the campaign."
Except......even doing so doesn't eliminate conflict. Back to my old party- the CG Bard and the NG cleric had similar views on doing good, but the how and what vastly at times differed and bumped heads. Magically compelling evil creatures to behave via the sanatarium might seem like a good idea to the cleric-who looked to do good by avariety of means, but was abhorant to the bard who valued free will. This caused a clash. Or the point of drugging the NPC to sleep, and just leaving them in bed of his house unattended which caused a cascade of problems that was the divisive point in our party was started with good intentions that had catastrophic consequences.....and caused the PVP conflict(which the DM squashed).
Just building similar viewpoints doesn't necessitate that you will get along and avoid conflict.
As a GM PvP is bad karma. As a PC, I tend to execute anyone who initiates PvP regardless of alignment. I state so before they finish their attack roll (can't trust a backstabber). Now I apply this same logic to NPCs too.
In a consensual dual of honor, I would allow it provided neither Player was actually angry.
|
|
You realize that I just said "make characters that won't clash with each other in ways that lead to PvP action," and you said "but that won't stop the characters from resorting to PvP actions."?
You realize that just saying make characters that wont clash with each other in ways..." doesn't actually work when you make them similar and they move in different directions right?
To your party example: Yes, the Bard and the Cleric will have differences of opinion - but that difference of opinion should not also be coupled with a "screw him, if he keeps disagreeing I'll just take away his ability to disagree," attitude.
Differences of opinion.....you realize you've pretty much glanced over the earlier part of the discussion on my examples of "poisoning the npc" and police powers, right?
You keep coming back to simple "differences of opinions" when I and others point it its not just differences of opinions, but actual actions characters have taken right?
Your cardboard examples of "screw it if he keep disagreeing with me" has gone far beyond JUST disagreement and into actual actions, right?
For example of what I mean with a rooting in the real world: I have friends with staggeringly different political views. Rather than constantly argue about who is right, or resorting to thinks like him knocking me out so that he can watch some political video I don't want to see at my house, we agree not to discuss politics and to keep our political video watching separate - his at his own house, and mine while he's not around.
To use your example, if your friend or you went beyond JUST different poltical views and you or him/her went into poltical actions that were diametrically opposed to each other(take....gay marriage.) One of you decides to spend time and money on antigay groups and foster their beliefs and motives and actions and so on......that's a bit more then
just disagreement. It might foster more actions then just disagree with not talking to each other(such as poltical funding of your own or stop hanging out or so on).But to further your example.....what happens when you CANT just agree to disagree. Going back to gaming and my old game....he poisoned the NPC with a sleep potion and left her to just die because she was an inconvience. That's not something one can just agree to disagree when your a goodly character, especially when you have police powers.
Conflict is fine - conflict that will escalate to PvP is not. Luckily, conflict only ever escalates as far as those involved are willing to take it. The key to a No PvP game, as I have said and will now say differently, is to make sure the PCs are not willing to act against their party mates in that way.
Ok, so what do you do then, to use an example, if you're playing a goodly character, and another player intentionally kills an NPC(and non-evil, non-threat? Do you just stand by and do nothing? How do you then maintain your Goodly alignment then?
How do you NOT act against another player in that case? By your logic you have to do mental jumping jacks to stay together as a party when one does something unjust.
That's not to say the first action is to kill each other- ours wasn't. But it will get that way if played. I was willing when the situation calls for it. I don't go out of my way to start it or look for it, but not going to overlook it if it makes sense either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The risk is inversely proportional to the maturity of the players, and the reward commensurately greater.
And I would suggest that the need to reach a point of PvP is inversely proportional to the maturity of the players.
Conflict is fine - conflict that will escalate to PvP is not. Luckily, conflict only ever escalates as far as those involved are willing to take it. The key to a No PvP game, as I have said and will now say differently, is to make sure the PCs are not willing to act against their party mates in that way.Ok, so what do you do then, to use an example, if you're playing a goodly character, and another player intentionally kills an NPC(and non-evil, non-threat? Do you just stand by and do nothing? How do you then maintain your Goodly alignment then?
I believe the key was for the original guy not to be a douche and act in a way that was going to bring the party into that level of conflict. You are a basically asking, "So what if a player has their character act like a douche and puts your character in a position where he either calls the douche character or does nothing, do you do nothing?" How about asking the player of the character not to play his character as a douche in the first place?
Ellis Mirari, you seem pretty stuck on the idea that the characters involved in your scenarios are going to inevitably resort to violence.
I do not think that is a fair assumption to make.
The Paladin wants the accused to live so he can be sure of any guilt before a punishment of death is delivered, and the rest of the Paladin's party want to just get the death-dealing over with because they are convinced that the accused is guilty.
Whether those people are NPCs or PCs does not affect that the Paladin does not wish to see his party members harmed or killed, and his party members do not wish to see him harmed or killed either - each wants to convince the other that their course of action is right, but none of those involved are sociopaths lacking the conscience to prevent their thoughts turning from "I'm going to explain to my good friend Gary how he is wrong and I am right," to "I'm going to kick the crap out of my good friend Gary, kill this guy even though my good friend Gary asked me not to, and then the two of us will keep on being friends," or "Gary disagrees with me about something... I guess we aren't friends like I thought we were, so I should kill him, kill this guy he is trying to stop me from killing, and then go on about my life."
First off, I shouldn't have to explicitly state that the characters have a verbal discussion first. Obviously there's going to be dialogue. But here, as in life, you can't often just argue away someone's moral position especially in a life-or-death situation. Assume here that both sides feel strongly enough about it that words have failed to convince them.
Second, PvP =/= violence, As I said in my last post. Using spells, non-lethal combat maneuvers, and stealing from party members is just as much PvP as "kicking the crap out of Gary". If one of these happens, the "No PvP rule" has been broken. The above scenario can end in two ways:
1) The players treat the problem as the way they would if the paladin were...
It is quite an odd group that can handle PvP, yet is destroyed by OOC discussions.
I usually play the sneaky types so GENERALLY when my Character decides "He's gonna die" it's really "In character i will kill him one night long after the campaign ends unless this comes up as a major thing"
that being noted, I did once wind up in a total party war, in which we were divided down the middle with a particularly strict dm who practiced "Thou shalt not ask questions of the quest giver relating to his motives, but don't worry because he's super awesome"
well my Character found one of the quest givers to be pretty suspicious and prone to hanging out with necromancers while ordering us to get powerful artifacts to rebuild an army of warforged......
So in that version of the d20 system, barbarians could multiclass with paladins... with the conduct code overlapping on "Be good, fight to the death"
Anddddd I was stuck! When the questgiver was using his magical DMNPC magic, I wound up questioning him, he got really defensive and before i could act he swung at me, another player jumped in attacking me, one backed me up, eventually leading to the six man party being literally evenly split in half.... though the others on my side didn't get to join in untill after a few rounds (DM LOVED to do that one).. As a murdertank I was able to get each one of them, the other players and the NPC (And his two ub3r compatriots) down to half health before the others got there fully 3 rounds of crossing a flat field after, and I was out cold.
it should be noted that my character was the most loyal of this man until he wiped out two villages. down to every baby
...Ellis Mirari, you seem pretty stuck on the idea that the characters involved in your scenarios are going to inevitably resort to violence.
I do not think that is a fair assumption to make.
The Paladin wants the accused to live so he can be sure of any guilt before a punishment of death is delivered, and the rest of the Paladin's party want to just get the death-dealing over with because they are convinced that the accused is guilty.
Whether those people are NPCs or PCs does not affect that the Paladin does not wish to see his party members harmed or killed, and his party members do not wish to see him harmed or killed either - each wants to convince the other that their course of action is right, but none of those involved are sociopaths lacking the conscience to prevent their thoughts turning from "I'm going to explain to my good friend Gary how he is wrong and I am right," to "I'm going to kick the crap out of my good friend Gary, kill this guy even though my good friend Gary asked me not to, and then the two of us will keep on being friends," or "Gary disagrees with me about something... I guess we aren't friends like I thought we were, so I should kill him, kill this guy he is trying to stop me from killing, and then go on about my life."
First off, I shouldn't have to explicitly state that the characters have a verbal discussion first. Obviously there's going to be dialogue. But here, as in life, you can't often just argue away someone's moral position especially in a life-or-death situation. Assume here that both sides feel strongly enough about it that words have failed to convince them.
Second, PvP =/= violence, As I said in my last post. Using spells, non-lethal combat maneuvers, and stealing from party members is just as much PvP as "kicking the crap out of Gary". If one of these happens, the "No PvP rule" has been broken. The above scenario can end in two ways:
1) The players treat the problem as the way
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the group would be destroyed. I said that a lengthly OOC moral debate would stop the game when a few rounds of PvP would not, and that a player being ultimately forced to act out of character in such a big moment could create more frustration than having his character lose in a fight fair-and-square.
My typical attitude towards deadly or similarly serious pvp is "Never, with exceptions."