The propriety of PC vs. PC: Never, *without* exception?

[Jaelithe]

I read regularly here that the occurrence is at the very least not to be encouraged, and that other DMs have even gone so far as to expressly forbid it. I understand the impulse, as well as the reasoning behind it.

But is this not, without question, a removal of arguably vital player volition? It's one thing to say, "Hey ... your character is a 6th level samurai in service to Lord Yakashimi. You are a licensed board-certified surgeon. Your character does not know how to diagnose and subsequently removed a damaged spleen." That's ridiculously inappropriate meta-gaming, and we all know it.

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?

One of the most interesting events in the long history of my wholly self-created home-brew (vis-à-vis the quasi-historical one I usually mention here) involved a neutral (good) drow ranger/druid of Solonor Thelandira, whose acquisition of a certain magical item had put him on the road towards evil. His comrade-at-arms, a lawful good dwarven paladin/cleric of Moradin, had watched with dismay this close friend lose his way over the months, and finally confronted him in specific circumstances that required one of them to give way ... or a duel to the death would ensue.

Neither would back down.

I took them aside, and said something to the effect of, "You understand that if you two decide to take this the next step, I shall referee the combat with complete objectivity. If one of you manages to incapacitate the other, and then chooses to deliver the death blow, well, you both know that people don't usually return to life in my games ... and neither of your characters is an itinerant carpenter from Nazareth, so don't count on my largess."

The players were having a blast just discussing it.

"No, we know! We understand!"

"Gentlemen ... my name is Pontius Pilate."

Noah nodded, and said to Tim, "He washes his hands of the whole thing."

The battle was memorable, fought with courage and cleverness on both sides; the rest of the players rallied around one or the other, shouting encouragement throughout. It proved to be one of the most exciting and noteworthy events in that particular campaign.

During and in the aftermath, the entire group, myself included, discussed what had happened with the excitement and enthusiasm of eight-year-old boys watching a Godzilla film festival.

None of it would have occurred if I'd simply put my foot down and said, "No player vs. player, ever."

As a matter of practicality, from a DM's perspective, I'd not subsequently allow a single player to then decide on leaving a trail of others' characters in his or her wake, constantly saying, "We have a difference of opinion we cannot resolve. I want to roll for initiative." But in this circumstance, both players portrayed their respective characters with the utmost seriousness, and insisted to me, "Joe, this is what would happen!"

(Of course, I myself had played the drow's sword for over a year, whispering poison into the PC's ear. He'd early on decided that, rather than ignoring it [which I would have allowed], he'd give it heed, and played his descent into paranoia and near-malevolence with all the skill of a trained thespian.)

The choices by all were in-character, and well-motivated.

I have not an instant of regret in having let their friendship run its course. If I hadn't, I wager none of us would remember that game the way we do.

Would this always be appropriate? Of course not. But saying, "No, never," is to me too autocratic and arbitrary.

Opinions?

[Ellis Mirari]

Some people break the magic circle. Some people can't keep the table at the table.

For them, PvP is not possible. It won't be handled with maturity. I've known some players in my gaming career (thankfully non of my regulars or close friends) who definitely would NOT be able to handle that with maturity.

I think forbidding PvP should be an absolute last resort if you know it's going to end in a shouting match.

The second-to-last session of my last campaign had our Klepto Kitsune Summoner get turned over to foreign authorities by the Fethcling Rogue/de facto party leader because he was too much of a liability (and also really pissed her character off). In the fights and chases that ensued as the summoner tried to evade capture, she tried to UNbetray him at one point, which actually made things worse.

At the end of the day, they were both in prison, and the summoner was going to be extradited. The group had one favor they earned from the Arcane Guard commissioner of the city, and the rogue used it on herself.

There were no bitter feelings at all. It was a dramatic moment they all enjoyed, and then the summoner's player rolled up a really ridiculous and fun character for our final battle.

[Adamantine Dragon]

I rather intensely dislike PvP situations. The number of times it has happened and not devolved into personal disputes in real life have been so few as to be not worth discussing. Even when the players pretend to be OK with it at the table, I almost always start getting offline messages about how the game isn't fun anymore from one or the other, if not both.

So I discourage it very strongly in my games.

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

It doesn't work very well in games where the implicit ending for all conflicts is death.

Pathfinder is one such game. When you start an initiative sequence, it is very likely to end in death and very difficult to attain any other end to the conflict.

Not all games are like that, and I am far more likely to include intra-party conflict in a game like Burning Wheel.

Pathfinder is a much better game for portraying a unified team overcoming varied and preposterous obstacles. Adventure Paths really illustrate the game's strengths — and they don't generally include a lot of fodder for intra-party conflict.

[thejeff]

PvP is dangerous. Not wrong, but it's dangerous to the game and to the group. When it works, it can be brilliant and produce some of the best gaming around. When it goes bad it ruin campaigns and even spill over into real life.

Even with mature players who don't let it spill over it can still be a problem for the game. Sometimes from the players in question, sometimes from the other players who want to get back to more interesting things or who want to avoid being dragged into the fight.

If you're going to do it, it really has to be cool with everyone involved. Either made clear at the start of the game that PvP is acceptable (and probably checked again even so if it doesn't break out until later), or when it appears things are heading across the line.

All that said and though I usually prefer a more cooperative game, I've had a lot of fun with Amber, where at least subtle, metaphorical backstabbing is the order of the day - though I've avoided actual throne war games. I committed at least one memorable literal backstabbing in an old 2E campaign. It was in the climatic scene and there were good reasons at the time, though I don't remember the details now.
And a number of character murders in Call of Cthulhu, generally of the "Dude, you're a little too crazy and you know a little too much" variety. One PC had made the Unspeakable Promise without grasping the implications. Luckily he didn't have any children.

[Matt Thomason]

It all comes down to knowing your players.

Some people can handle it, some can't. The safe default when giving advice is to assume it's all going to end in tears.

With some groups, you know that they will treat PvP combat as something they can quite happily live with, either because they're happy to keep it at a game level or because they see the shared storytelling experience as being more important than their own character.

With others, you know that the players will take it personally, that they're too attached to their characters, or that the inevitable squabbling just isn't worth it. Or you're just not sure, in which case it's probably not a good idea to risk it.

[Jaelithe]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I rather intensely dislike PvP situations. The number of times it has happened and not devolved into personal disputes in real life have been so few as to be not worth discussing. Even when the players pretend to be OK with it at the table, I almost always start getting offline messages about how the game isn't fun anymore from one or the other, if not both.

So I discourage it very strongly in my games.

The DM knows his or her players, especially in a long-standing campaign with players comprised of his or her friends. If it's apparent that player versus player can't work with certain players, well ... discouraging it in them (as you do, AD) is only prudent.

I just don't know that forbidding it outright is acceptable.

Great insights all around.

[LazarX]

Jaelithe wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I rather intensely dislike PvP situations. The number of times it has happened and not devolved into personal disputes in real life have been so few as to be not worth discussing. Even when the players pretend to be OK with it at the table, I almost always start getting offline messages about how the game isn't fun anymore from one or the other, if not both.

So I discourage it very strongly in my games.

The DM knows his or her players, especially in a long-standing campaign with players comprised of his or her friends. If it's apparent that player versus player can't work with certain players, well ... discouraging it in them (as you do, AD) is only prudent.

I just don't know that forbidding it outright is acceptable.

Great insights all around.

That's what group decisions are all about. I go by the following four words.

Home Game, Home Rules.

Everything else is an elaboration of the above. What works brilliantly for Group A, may be so so for Group B and an absolute disaster for Group C.

Doesn't mean that Group C is a "bad" group, or that Group A was that much better. The moral is that individual group dynamics are different and the art of DMing is getting in tune with the dynamics of your group.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I rather intensely dislike PvP situations. The number of times it has happened and not devolved into personal disputes in real life have been so few as to be not worth discussing. Even when the players pretend to be OK with it at the table, I almost always start getting offline messages about how the game isn't fun anymore from one or the other, if not both.

So I discourage it very strongly in my games.

The DM knows his or her players, especially in a long-standing campaign with players comprised of his or her friends. If it's apparent that player versus player can't work with certain players, well ... discouraging it in them (as you do, AD) is only prudent.

I just don't know that forbidding it outright is acceptable.

Great insights all around.

Forbidding it outright is acceptable in some groups, for some playstyles and in some campaigns.

Forbidding "forbidding it outright" is not acceptable if you intend that to apply to everyone.
Discouraging without forbidding works in some circumstances. Encouraging works in some circumstances.
Outright forbidding works in others.

[Adamantine Dragon]

It has been my experience so far that the desire to PvP is generally expressed much more strongly by one player at the table than the rest. That alone is a potential problem.

If everyone at the table wants to do it and can deal with the consequences, then fine. It just has rarely, rarely been my experience that everyone at the table wants to do it and can deal with the consequences.

[thejeff]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

It has been my experience so far that the desire to PvP is generally expressed much more strongly by one player at the table than the rest. That alone is a potential problem.

If everyone at the table wants to do it and can deal with the consequences, then fine. It just has rarely, rarely been my experience that everyone at the table wants to do it and can deal with the consequences.

Very much so. Or even if multiple people want it, but one really doesn't, you're going to have issues. You need consensus and not the kind where someone is pushed into agreeing.

If you go the "discourage without forbidding" route, then that one person who really wants it can go right ahead if he wants to. And if the target protests, he's now the immature one who can't deal with it and is disrupting the group, even though he wanted no part of it to start with.

It's not always the case of course, but this is another case where it's easy to blame player disruption on "Just role-playing my character."

[Ellis Mirari]

As a player, the only sort of PvP I've ever done was strictly non-lethal, i.e. the meddlesome rogue is shooting his mouth off again and ruining my attempts at intimidation *sleep hex*.

I suppose it's easier for a caster to pvp without a real risk of death. I would also houserule that a PC can choose to negate their own critical hit if they so choose, since that has the capacity to turn a -1 into a kill by accident, which wouldn't really be so outside a person's control.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Ellis, I'd say that for quite a few of my rogues, if you fired off a "sleep hex" because my rogue was "shooting his mouth off" you might find that you have just encountered a pretty significant risk of death.

[Jaelithe]

Would you petition the DM for permission for (further) player vs. player if such occurred, AD?

[Adamantine Dragon]

Jaelithe wrote:

Would you petition the DM for permission for (further) player vs. player if such occurred, AD?

It would be a character based decision. I haven't actually even played a rogue in Pathfinder, all of my rogues were played back in 3.5 and earlier versions. If it was one of my truly evil rogues who had a chip on their shoulder, ESPECIALLY when it comes to magic users, then yeah, I'd probably petition the GM to allow my rogue to teach the witch a lesson. Maybe a permanent lesson. It would depend on how embarrassing the situation was when the rogue was hexed.

[Googleshng]

Jaelithe wrote:

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?

I'm generally opposed to players creating characters with that level of animosity towards each other in the first place, although it largely depends on the sort of game you want to run. When I'm running or playing Pathfinder, the general assumption is that there is going to be a big ol' grand serious threat to deal with at any given time, and all the PCs need to work hard to deal with it or there will be horrific consequences for them and everyone they hold dear. For that sort of game, you really need to keep any intraparty conflicts relatively minor.

If you're running a sort of game where there's never any really huge stakes and people are just sorta hanging out doing whatever, PvP away, but Pathfinder's a bad choice for that sort of game because it's built around a party dynamic and has all that crazy level scaling.

[thejeff]

Googleshng wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

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?

I'm generally opposed to players creating characters with that level of animosity towards each other in the first place, although it largely depends on the sort of game you want to run. When I'm running or playing Pathfinder, the general assumption is that there is going to be a big ol' grand serious threat to deal with at any given time, and all the PCs need to work hard to deal with it or there will be horrific consequences for them and everyone they hold dear. For that sort of game, you really need to keep any intraparty conflicts relatively minor.

If you're running a sort of game where there's never any really huge stakes and people are just sorta hanging out doing whatever, PvP away, but Pathfinder's a bad choice for that sort of game because it's built around a party dynamic and has all that crazy level scaling.

It's not always obvious that the characters will have that level of animosity. Sometimes it's the development during play and the choices characters make that turn them against each other.

[Jaelithe]

I think Pathfinder, like any other version of D&D, can be configured for whatever purpose the DM and players desire. I've never in my life used an Adventure Path, and won't start at this late date. I respect others' creativity, but prefer to employ my own when designing scenarios for my players. In addition, I wouldn't want to play one. I'm not remotely interested in having an adventure others have already had. Just a quirk of mine, I suppose.

In this case, Googleshng, these characters were initially suspicious of each other (as one might expect from a drow and mountain dwarf), became close friends over time without a hint of conflict between them, then found themselves on a path to confrontation.

I certainly don't agree, though, that player vs. player must be avoided simply because the stakes are high. That's a conceit of the railroading inherent with Adventure Paths, in my opinion.

Could they have set their differences aside for the greater good? I imagine they could have, but ... who is to say what the gods consider of primary importance? The salvation of a soul may be of more value to them than the preservation of lives.

[Hama]

I generally forbid any kind of PvP that is not harmless pranking. Anything that could result in problems for the party in general or endanger it somehow is severely frowned upon.

That said, if two players approach me and tell me they want to build animosity between their characters for the story, I will jump right at it. I love character development.

[Jaelithe]

The consensus seems to be this: If players can handle player versus player maturely, it can add immense depth and profundity to a story arc. If you have any inkling at all they can't, best to avoid even a hint of it.

Makes sense to me.

[pres man]

I stopped playing video games on line because I tired of the little boys, that hadn't yet have their sacks drop, backstabbing the group. I have no interest in it in my table top gaming. I wouldn't describe that behavior as "mature".

On the other hand, I have found that what most people describe as "mature" usually isn't. So perhaps it is the "correct" word for it.

[Jaelithe]

The duel I described was agreed upon; they faced each other, each character believing the gods would endorse the right—blade to blade ... and face-to-face.

[Adamantine Dragon]

I used to play in a group where the player who played the party battle cleric liked to assert that his character was the most powerful character in the party. We had some good-natured discussions about whether his cleric or my druid would win in a PvP duel.

Neither of our characters would ever do PvP, so we just sort of kept ribbing each other about it.

Until the GM handed me a note out of the blue that said "You believe your allies are your enemies".

After the dust had been settled, half the party was dead, the battle cleric and the party rogue together, between them, managed to finally subdue my druid.

So there are ways to do "PvP" without true conflict in the party.

My druid would have wiped out the entire party too, if that dang cleric hadn't rolled a lucky save on a very high fort DC...

[Ellis Mirari]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Ellis, I'd say that for quite a few of my rogues, if you fired off a "sleep hex" because my rogue was "shooting his mouth off" you might find that you have just encountered a pretty significant risk of death.

She probably wouldn't, then, because you would have proven useful enough to tolerate. Fionagh has no patience for unbacked bravado (which, in this case, what all the rogue was selling).

[thenobledrake]

I, as a GM, forbid PvP in every case other than campaigns where the following are true: A) the players involved are all interested in pursuing PvP play, B) the players involved are interested in the same degree of PvP play, and have decided among themselves the line that shall not be crossed, and C) has a plot line which intentionally centers upon the PvP interactions.

My experience has been that PvP outside those conditions is detrimental to the campaign - including that I have had more than 1 group of players that couldn't do PvP without that meaning the campaign follows a set pattern of Party Forms> Adventure Begins> Party member steals something, lies, or otherwise manages to benefit more than the rest of the party> Resent forms> Resent-driven retaliation results in a character death> Escalation into full-blown player vs. player brawling that transcends characters and includes building a new character specifically designed to "get back at" the old character's killer.

...and all of the times that happened it was with adult players.

Edit to Add: It struck me after posting that talking about my current group might be worthwhile.

We forbid PvP, though 2 players associated with the group are actually unaware of that because they have recently come back to the group after being absent for a few years and I'm not actually the GM for the campaign they joined so I didn't think to bring up the general table rules.

In campaigns where PvP is specifically forbidden, my players have no trouble role-playing, immersing themselves in their characters, and even having disagreements or arguments in-character that do not spill into real life.

...but in the few campaigns we've run with PvP allowed, the same thing always manages to happen: One player starts making claims as to what his character can do, typically in a hypothetical "if your character betrays mine" situation, and another player joins in - turning the conversation into one giant "my Dad could totally beat up your Dad" argument (also referred to as a genital waving contest).

Then the worst thing possible happens, and the hypothetical starts to become a real situation - except now the players both subconsciously feel like the conflict has been going on for a long time, so their reactions are extreme... and the campaign implodes.

[Farastu]

I allow PvP and even have encouraged it at times, it has added very interesting drama to the game, and made for some very interesting scenes. One of the PvP instances that occurred even involved one player attacking the rest of his party, however his own cohort sided with the rest of the party against him, so he ended up playing his two characters trying to kill each other. It was a great scene IMO.

If you don't have the right group of players for it, then it can really end horribly, but if you have the right group of players for it, then it can add to the game rather than take away from it.
A lot of stories have betrayals or misunderstandings that escalate to some sort of conflict after all, so it is an element of good storytelling that I like the possibility of including in the game.

However it needs to be something that also happens for a clear and solid reason, and to highlight tension between people whom were once allies, and while it will likely be an important plot point, but not a complete game focus IMO.

[Sir William]

While I've never actually forbid PvP, outside of games when it was joint decision (or I've given a player a note directing it) before the adventure(s) start, there is a method that has worked well for me in the past.

When a player (usually a new player) starts down the path, or worse, asks me privately about PvP I just say "If you agree that your character becomes an NPC if you kill his/her character then I will allow it."

If they are not coming from the place they are claiming, that usually puts it in perspective.

[Razh]

If the players are okay with PvP and there's a good reason for it in-game, I allow it. If there's bitter feelings afterwards and out-of-game conflicts, I totally forbid it.

It really comes down to what sort of group you're playing with, their level of maturity and their own expectations about the game.

[The Beard]

I've surprisingly never had a bad experience with PvP popping up at the table. Admittedly, it was usually caused by one of my characters gaining the lich (or death knight; ye olde graveknight predecessor) template, and the paladin deciding it wanted to start a fight with a spellcaster that had so many contingency plans in place the GM actually hated it. Bearing that in mind, everyone was laughing about it after the paladin was permanently destroyed.

Unfortunately, not every table is going to have the mature sorts of players. Best thing to do is to just gauge how your players react to certain situations, see if tensions are running high out of character, and go from there. It might not be necessary at all to say no to PvP, but if it is, don't hesitate to bring down the hammer.

[carmachu]

Jaelithe wrote:

I read regularly here that the occurrence is at the very least not to be encouraged, and that other DMs have even gone so far as to expressly forbid it. I understand the impulse, as well as the reasoning behind it.

there really are too many variables to just say 'yes or no' to be honest.

In your example it was a prime example of players playing roleplaying well and with all the understanding of the consequences of the road travels. However, Not every game and every player vs player is like that. I had games were stabbing people in the back was the norm, and didn't like it. I like working together and not attacking other players. In another game, myself as a priest and the warrior were at odds on actions the bard and wizard did it was going to come to blows.....and the DM stopped it. He didn't want it to fracture the party. In another game, arresting them as the cleric and warrior wished to do would have been fine and might have come to blows.

It really depends on some factors in the players, DM and dynamics of the game.

[Ellis Mirari]

It would just create too much of an odd disconnect for me if I played an anger-problem fighter who gets into fights because people look at him funny, and then when an ally does something I disagree with on serious moral grounds I can't do anything about it because he has a green name tag floating over his head.

[thejeff]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

It would just create too much of an odd disconnect for me if I played an anger-problem fighter who gets into fights because people look at him funny, and then when an ally does something I disagree with on serious moral grounds I can't do anything about it because he has a green name tag floating over his head.

Then don't play that character in a no-PvP game.

Seems pretty simple to me. Stick with characters who you won't have to force to stay within the games social contract.

[Corathon]

IMC, I don't regard it as within my purview as a DM to forbid the player characters from fighting each other. As long as the players are mature enough to handle it, I won't interfere.

[pres man]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

It would just create too much of an odd disconnect for me if I played an anger-problem fighter who gets into fights because people look at him funny, and then when an ally does something I disagree with on serious moral grounds I can't do anything about it because he has a green name tag floating over his head.

Personally I've never been fond of the attitude, "I have to do X because it is what my character would do." Where X is usually some disruptive action, e.g. stealing from the party, attacking party members, etc.

People are notoriously inconsistent and quite able to do mental gymnastics when things involve cognitive dissonance. Claims of a character "has to do" anything are just the player deciding they want to do that thing. They could find other reactions to do, if they so choose.

[Ellis Mirari]

pres man wrote:

Ellis Mirari wrote:

It would just create too much of an odd disconnect for me if I played an anger-problem fighter who gets into fights because people look at him funny, and then when an ally does something I disagree with on serious moral grounds I can't do anything about it because he has a green name tag floating over his head.

Personally I've never been fond of the attitude, "I have to do X because it is what my character would do." Where X is usually some disruptive action, e.g. stealing from the party, attacking party members, etc.

Are you not fond of the attitude or not fond of the result it sometimes has, because those are two very different things. One is an attitude, one is a result that you may not like.

I have to donate tip the barmaid because it's what my character would do.

I have to refer to my relationship to my companions as "investments" because it's what my character would do.

I have to spend an hour saying prayers every morning even though I'm not a cleric because it's what my character would do.

I have to place the rogue under citizens arrest because he killed someone who could have been innocent because it's what my character would do.

There is a full spread, and a player's or character's motivations for doing so are their own, though I admit there are certainly some "people" that are notoriously inconsistant, just as some "people" claim know much more about the gaming habits of strangers than they possibly could.

EDIT: For all you know the "serious moral grounds" (did you read that part?) could be because some other party member killed an NPC for no reason.

[LowRoller]

As a player i'm not interested in PvP at all. I never build a character with pvp in mind. No stealing-from-party rogues, no angry-at-everything barbarians.

If i found myself in a group with 'pvp on' i would just quit. It's simply not the kind of game i want to play.

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.

[Jaelithe]

Off topic:

I had a friend who portrayed a rogue that stole small amounts of coin from party members, regularly, over years of game time. When, at long last, he was caught, the others felt so utterly betrayed that they were prepared to expel him from the group. My character, a paladin, had a certain suspicion because he'd confessed so readily what he'd been doing, and asked, "What did you do with all that money?"

It ended up that he'd sequestered it all with the guild, each in a separate account, so that if any of us ever needed it, he could present funds with a flourish and assure us that it was already our money.

"It allowed me to practice my skills and not steal anything—well, not forever, anyway. The best of both worlds!"

My character told him to keep doing what he was doing, and that we'd be extra vigilant from this point forward so as to sharpen his skills even more. The others, a little chagrined, relieved and quite amused, agreed.

In secret, my paladin went to him and asked, "And how much did you keep aside as a percentage for performing this 'service' for us?"

He looked surprised; then, with a sly grin, he answered, "Five percent. I am what I am."

I told him we'd call it an arrangement from that point forward. He told me it wouldn't be as fun, but agreed.

I have no doubt he found some other way to get over we didn't know about, but ... leopards don't change their spots, and you can't ask too much of people. :)

[Ellis Mirari]

LowRoller wrote:

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.

There are no fewer reasons for friendships to end in shouting matches, fist fights, or even murder in the PF world than there are in the real world.

What if you are a LG Paladin and a few party members think this NPC is guilty and should be killed while you are convinced that he isn't, and that the real culprit is still lose? Are you just going to sit back and let him die?

What if the rogue has been stealing from every shop vendor you've ever been to and refuses to return the money? Do you just say "Well, taking it back by force or calling the authorities just CAN'T BE DONE because it's PvP so I guess I have to let him do what he wants".

If PCs are always the same alignment and have the same opinions on what is okay, it'll never happen. But I don't like to impose a way to play on my players. They decide what is acceptable for their party.

[DeathQuaker]

Depends, have you ever played Paranoia? ;)

In seriousness, in a game like Pathfinder, I would discourage PvP. I design stories to revolve around a team of heroes cooperating with each other.

However, as long as players were truly okay with it and we had a good clear discussion about it first, I would allow in-fighting.

[LowRoller]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

If PCs are always the same alignment and have the same opinions on what is okay, it'll never happen. But I don't like to impose a way to play on my players. They decide what is acceptable for their party.

I was posting about my preference AS A PLAYER and the close-aligned group is exactly the kind of group i want.

[pres man]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

What if you are a LG Paladin and a few party members think this NPC is guilty and should be killed while you are convinced that he isn't, and that the real culprit is still lose? Are you just going to sit back and let him die?

Why is the other players so dead set (no pun intended) on killing the person versus just keeping them captive. If necessary the paladin can become an NPC and spend their time watching the NPC. But to come to blows over it? Seems silly to me. As the paladin, I would make it clear that the party would have to go through me to get to the prisoner in this case, but I wouldn't fight them. If they kill me, so be it. There isn't going to be a PvP, if one side refuses to fight.

slightly related story:

I once had a character, a rogue I think it has been a while, who was going to multi-class into wizard. During down time, he was studying the scrolls we had in the party. The plan was for the sorcerer to hold on to the scrolls (and use them if necessary) until I learned enough and got a spellbook (i.e. took a level in wizard), then I would use some of the party scrolls to transcribe them into my spellbook. Scribing new copies later if necessary.

Well the group was attacked by bandits. The bandits recognizing the sorcerer as a spellcaster, payed special attention to attacking her. When most of the bandits were killed, I cornered the last two and told them to surrender. They did.

The sorcerer was so upset that they had been targeting her, that she wanted to kill them out of hand. I told her that I had accepted their surrender and they were in my care. I would not let her harm them. I didn't attack her, I just moved between them and made it clear they were under my care. She got so frustrated she pulled out some scrolls and burned them. "There, that is what you get!" I just nodded and said, "I understand."

Now a lot of that was actually just this player being a very sore sport and certain dynamics going on between the player and the GM (at the time they were married to each other). But I kept a cool head and didn't respond in a way that caused a PvP situation, while still supporting my character's view.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

What if the rogue has been stealing from every shop vendor you've ever been to and refuses to return the money? Do you just say "Well, taking it back by force or calling the authorities just CAN'T BE DONE because it's PvP so I guess I have to let him do what he wants".

You could always give them your money. You could abandon the rogue. You could tail the rogue and ruin all his attempts at stealth. Honestly, if it got to the point where violence became a feasible option, I think that is time for the party to disband and go their separate ways. I'm not going to necessarily turn over the guy that has covered my ass in the most dangerous and evil places of the world, there is a certainly level of honor with brothers in arms. But if he has started to be that person I can't deal with, I'm going to try to convince him to abandon the path he is on and if that doesn't work, I'm going to leave him.

[thenobledrake]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

What if you are a LG Paladin and a few party members think this NPC is guilty and should be killed while you are convinced that he isn't, and that the real culprit is still lose? Are you just going to sit back and let him die?

To me, this is not a PvP situation - it is a PvE situation that the characters (or players or both) are having a disagreement about how to handle.

It would become PvP if one of these members of what I would hope is a tight-knit band of adventurers that respect and trust each other decided that this disagreement was worth resorting to actions that require dice rolls against another party member - such as casting a spell to get the Paladin's agreement or prevent his protection of the NPC, or the Paladin deciding to go ahead and attack one of the party members that wants to kill the NPC.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

What if the rogue has been stealing from every shop vendor you've ever been to and refuses to return the money? Do you just say "Well, taking it back by force or calling the authorities just CAN'T BE DONE because it's PvP so I guess I have to let him do what he wants".

Again, this is a disagreement over how to act in a PvE situation that does not have to turn into a PvP situation.

...and no matter how good that Rogue is at stealing from shop vendors, if his trusted and respected party mates ask him to stop then he should do so because his actions do not only risk causing trouble for him, but for his known associates as well - getting the whole party banned from the best markets around on suspicion that they aided you in your thievery is not a good thing to do.

The party can just do what people do most often in real life when a friend is going down a road they don't wish to follow them on - sever ties. It is not PvP to say "your character does not fit in this party, so make a new one," anymore than it can be considered PvP to have said "your concept doesn't fit the campaign, make a different character," at the beginning of a campaign.

Which in my experience is how most groups handle the "no PvP" ruling - by insisting that all characters created by intentionally built with personalities that will not do things like punch a friend in the face for disagreeing or endanger the entire party for selfish gains one handful of merchant gold at a time.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

If PCs are always the same alignment and have the same opinions on what is okay, it'll never happen. But I don't like to impose a way to play on my players. They decide what is acceptable for their party.

I like to use a Party Alignment system. Basically, before the players start building their characters for a campaign the group (myself included) will decide upon the alignment of the party as a whole - each individual character being able to choose any alignment within 1 step so that there is assured to be something the characters agree upon despite their otherwise different views.

Typically, the group chooses to have a Neutral Good party so that any good alignment is allowed, but nothing evil or "crazy" is, though inevitably 1 character in the party is simply Neutral and along in the campaign for reasons that significantly differ from, but do not work against, the rest of the party.

The basic reasoning is that any alignments outside that 1-step range are likely to have already realized they don't like being around each other early enough in interacting with each other to never form the long-lasting alliance that a party of adventurers represents.

[Kimera757]

IMO, banning PVP is just safer. I used to have problems with PCs who could not get along until I took a much heavier hand in character generation. I actually did that a bit... in my defense, I was a kid in my first year of playing D&D, and quickly learned that PVP banning is an unwritten rule.

Since then, I did that once, but to be fair the PC was asking for it. Another PC, having severely injured yet another PC over some nonsense (someone called the crazy PC short) later went and set fire to a bar that our allies were having drinks in. They basically all died. I knocked him out with a tranquilizer gun until I could talk to the other PCs about it. That was also my last session with that group, so I didn't feel that burning bridges was a big deal.

[MendedWall12]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I've had a lot of success over the years with letting players that have that unavoidable character machismo, some in-game (or out-of-game for that matter) grievance, or just a general hankering to see how they'd do against their fellows, to actually fight each other outside of the game. Meaning, their characters are still embroiled in whatever campaign we are running, but I take a day, or sometimes multiple days, and just let the players fight each other in varying conditions on various terrains. On the whole it tends to get those desires out of their system, and allows us all to focus on the campaign when it's time.

Spoiler:

I have even, on the occasion that a player wants an in game reason for the fight, crafted a narrative that revolves around some powerful wizards and clerics that have attained such a level of power, that they are bored. Therefore they seek out thrills by having up-and-coming adventurers fight for their entertainment. That way resurrection of the dead, replacing consumables, all these things fall under the purvey of those that are being entertained. The adventurers get teleported against their will to a tournament ground, are geased to fight their comrades, and then all parties are restored to previous conditions and dropped right back where they came from. Is the story element necessary? No, but some players really want that narrative element.

Having said that, I have actually allowed PvP in a campaign on more than one occasion. Each time it made significant story sense, and each player was aware of the ramifications. As many have already said, avoiding it is usually the best case scenario, but to outright exclude it with no situational possibilities, in my estimation, takes away a certain level of truth to a narrative. Sometimes even family have knock-down, drag-out fights. What's to say that two adventurers in the same company wouldn't have an emotional falling out? I guess, in many cases, the GM. :)

[Ellis Mirari]

Kind of a lot to respond to directly, so I'll try to pick the important parts.

Pres Man wrote:

Why is the other players so dead set (no pun intended) on killing the person versus just keeping them captive. If necessary the paladin can become an NPC and spend their time watching the NPC. But to come to blows over it? Seems silly to me. As the paladin, I would make it clear that the party would have to go through me to get to the prisoner in this case, but I wouldn't fight them. If they kill me, so be it. There isn't going to be a PvP, if one side refuses to fight.

Now, to start with, that last part doesn't make a lot of sense. You make it clear they have to get through you to kill this guy, but that statement means you are going to fight them off. If you're just going to stand there and not fight, they'll just walk around you.

Anyway, this is supposed to just be a general example of a situation where the PvP isn't simply "I'm greedy I want to do what I want to do" and picking it apart is unnecessary. There could be an issue of time. Maybe the the evil NPC is a wizard that could escape unless they killed him now in this exact moment. It's really irrelevant to my point; the point is, the party has two options and they disagree on strong moral grounds.

You can sit here and think

thenobledrake wrote:

To me, this is not a PvP situation - it is a PvE situation that the characters (or players or both) are having a disagreement about how to handle.

It would become PvP if one of these members of what I would hope is a tight-knit band of adventurers that respect and trust each other decided that this disagreement was worth resorting to actions that require dice rolls against another party member - such as casting a spell to get the Paladin's agreement or prevent his protection of the NPC, or the Paladin deciding to go ahead and attack one of the party members that wants to kill the NPC.

You're missing the point. This is a do or die situation. The party is in disagreement. Either the paladin lets them kill this (as he believes) possibly innocent NPC, or a PvP results. If this were a matter of the paladin vs a group of NPCs, no one would bat an eye. He does that all the time, it's what his character would do.

A player that *isn't metagaming* should play their PC in a way that treats NPCs as not inherently different than PCs. They are all people in this world. If the only reason the character is acting differently toward a person is because that person happens to be controlled by a player and not a GM, we have a problem.

And before anyone does, don't bring up "Well PCs know eachother better they should be buddies" that's irrelevent. Let's just assume for the sake of argument the hypothetical NPC and PC versions are the same character that has spend just as much time with the subject. the only difference is who is controlling them.

[thejeff]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Kind of a lot to respond to directly, so I'll try to pick the important parts.

Pres Man wrote:

Why is the other players so dead set (no pun intended) on killing the person versus just keeping them captive. If necessary the paladin can become an NPC and spend their time watching the NPC. But to come to blows over it? Seems silly to me. As the paladin, I would make it clear that the party would have to go through me to get to the prisoner in this case, but I wouldn't fight them. If they kill me, so be it. There isn't going to be a PvP, if one side refuses to fight.

Now, to start with, that last part doesn't make a lot of sense. You make it clear they have to get through you to kill this guy, but that statement means you are going to fight them off. If you're just going to stand there and not fight, they'll just walk around you.

Anyway, this is supposed to just be a general example of a situation where the PvP isn't simply "I'm greedy I want to do what I want to do" and picking it apart is unnecessary. There could be an issue of time. Maybe the the evil NPC is a wizard that could escape unless they killed him now in this exact moment. It's really irrelevant to my point; the point is, the party has two options and they disagree on strong moral grounds.

You can sit here and think

thenobledrake wrote:

To me, this is not a PvP situation - it is a PvE situation that the characters (or players or both) are having a disagreement about how to handle.

It would become PvP if one of these members of what I would hope is a tight-knit band of adventurers that respect and trust each other decided that this disagreement was worth resorting to actions that require dice rolls against another party member - such as casting a spell to get the Paladin's agreement or prevent his protection of the NPC, or the Paladin deciding to go ahead and attack one of the party members that wants to kill the NPC.

You're missing the point. This is a do or die situation. The party is in disagreement....

In a game with No-PvP in the social contract, this is a metagame problem. Deal with it on that level. Find away around it as players.

Or let the game die. Which it's likely to anyway once it goes this far.

And remember, it should be an agreement not to push things to the point of PvP, not free rein to do whatever you want knowing the other PCs can't act against you.
If nothing else, the PCs don't know that. A player relying on the the no PvP agreement to shield his character is metagaming of the worst sort.

[pres man]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Now, to start with, that last part doesn't make a lot of sense. You make it clear they have to get through you to kill this guy, but that statement means you are going to fight them off. If you're just going to stand there and not fight, they'll just walk around you.

That is what it means to you. To me it means I stand between them. If they try to move around me, I move to intercept. I stay between them. If they want to get to the prisoner, then they will have to go through me, not around, since I'll keep moving to intercept them. Now sure, if multiple people want to attack the prisoner, I can't stop them all. But be clear in that point, the attackers have effectively just told the paladin to leave the party. Which the paladin should do after the incident. You don't stick with people you can't trust.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

It's really irrelevant to my point; the point is, the party has two options and they disagree on strong moral grounds.

And usually those are what are known as false dilemmas. People only see two options, when in fact there are others possible if people are willing to try and come up with them.

[Steve Geddes]

Jaelithe wrote:

I read regularly here that the occurrence is at the very least not to be encouraged, and that other DMs have even gone so far as to expressly forbid it. I understand the impulse, as well as the reasoning behind it.

But is this not, without question, a removal of arguably vital player volition?...

I think so, but that isnt inherently a bad thing at our table.

Quote:

......Would this always be appropriate? Of course not. But saying, "No, never," is to me too autocratic and arbitrary.

Opinions?

Not that it would come up at our table, but FWIW, I would never run a game including PvP but I wouldnt put it the way you've phrased it (even though "no, never" is the practical outcome). I'd just explain that I'm not interested in running a campaign where the players fight one another. I wouldnt have any qualms about playing in one if the group wanted to give it a go (although I wouldnt participate).

The discussions I read on the forums about DMs vs Players (or DM-rights vs player-rights, perhaps) often seem to me to be far more "take it or leave it" than what happens at our table. Nobody ever dictates to the others unless everyone has agreed to ceding that control first.

[Ellis Mirari]

pres man wrote:

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Now, to start with, that last part doesn't make a lot of sense. You make it clear they have to get through you to kill this guy, but that statement means you are going to fight them off. If you're just going to stand there and not fight, they'll just walk around you.

That is what it means to you. To me it means I stand between them. If they try to move around me, I move to intercept. I stay between them. If they want to get to the prisoner, then they will have to go through me, not around, since I'll keep moving to intercept them. Now sure, if multiple people want to attack the prisoner, I can't stop them all. But be clear in that point, the attackers have effectively just told the paladin to leave the party. Which the paladin should do after the incident. You don't stick with people you can't trust.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

It's really irrelevant to my point; the point is, the party has two options and they disagree on strong moral grounds.

And usually those are what are known as false dilemmas. People only see two options, when in fact there are others possible if people are willing to try and come up with them.

One could argue that PvP does not necessarily include violence to be PvP. Obstructing a party member could arguably be considered PvP...

But regardless, whether the PCs kill the paladin as he tries to intercept, or they use spells/combat maneuvers to subdue him, PvP has just happened, and the end result was one character being removed from the party by death or by choice. So I really don't see an effective difference.

thejeff wrote:

In a game with No-PvP in the social contract, this is a metagame problem. Deal with it on that level. Find away around it as players.

Or let the game die. Which it's likely to anyway once it goes this far.

A little clarification: Are you saying that once things come to blows between PCs it means the game will automatically die? Because I can assure you that has never been the case for me. If you mean specifically for a group that can't handle PvP and seemed to agree to not do it before hand, then yes you are probably right.

thejeff wrote:

And remember, it should be an agreement not to push things to the point of PvP, not free rein to do whatever you want knowing the other PCs can't act against you.
If nothing else, the PCs don't know that. A player relying on the the no PvP agreement to shield his character is metagaming of the worst sort.

The primary example I have been using is not a situation that any player arrived at by choice. They are faced with a moral dilemma that has plenty of real-world parallels: One player thinks he's innocent, others think he is guilty. One players would rather die than let an innocent man be killed, others don't want to take that risk.

In that scenario I can see no way that will not result in some form of PvP and at least one character being removed from the game in some fashion.

[thenobledrake]

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."