The trouble with in-party conflict

[Chromnos]

So here's the deal...

I play a home game in which one of my characters has been a background, though not front-stage, factor in major parts of the story development for some time. She's an exiled noble seeking justice for her murdered father who was also King of a now shattered realm. The current rulers are demon possessed murder hobos that are rapidly running the whole place into the ground.

Mechanically, she's a cleric with a mix of good party support, magic item creation to be helpful to fill party gaps, and decently fills in the combat role when need be. But her strength and focus is keeping people alive. She's generally good, not paladin goody, goody but wanted to be helpful overall and generally striving to be benevolent.

Recently, a rather innocent NPC by the, admittedly ironic, name of Yorick became the target of a kind of meta-game sabotage. Three of the players in our group of five decided to ' let Yorick be eaten' by a dragon in an upcoming battle. The motivation for this fratricide was that Yorick was the admittedly thick-headed but otherwise well intending brother in law of one of these three -- a noble who would be first in line for his succession if Yorick just happened to bite the dust.

So all this Machiavellian plotting occurs kind of as half joking banter at the table for months leading up to the fight with the Dragon. And nothing seems to be said in character. For my part, though my character finds Yorick to be a bit dim, she has no reason to dislike him and it would be against her character to take part in this kind of fratricide. In fact something quite similar happened to her father and, if she caught wind of it, let's just say there'd be issues.

So game day rolls along, Yorick (under the control of one of the players who keeps joking about killing poor Yorick) stupidly charges right up to the dragon. After many close calls, Yorick manages to pull through, both due to my healing and to the quick thinking on the part of one of the other party members (not a part of the meta game conspiracy).

The result? Two of the guys who'd been joking about the Yorick fratricide appear crestfallen and walk off in a huff. I find this a bit odd as all the Yorick banter came off as kind of this 'wink-wink' 'nudge-nudge' table talk. Stuff I tried not to take too seriously or to consider in-game.

So I'm a bit perplexed about the whole episode and I start prodding conspirator #3 to find out what's going on and he starts talking about German words that mean 'taking enjoyment from other people's suffering,' bringing up grievances about game sessions that happened two years ago (never mentioned until now) and criticizing the GM for not building in enough options for player development (which I wholeheartedly disagree with as the players who approach the GM with specific goals and development ideas almost always find opportunities coming along).

Throughout the whole episode, there appears to be an under -current of both this player (who runs the party paladin) and the other three longing to skip the light fantastic into DR. Evil mode.

Now all this would be great and fun and even interesting (except for what I consider to be passive aggressive crap) if my character, as a support type, were not so reliant on the others and didn't have so much to lose. She needs their help to avenge her father and try to set a few things straight (an opportunity that keeps getting put off) but it appears 2-3 of the group I are more intent on playing villains, sabotaging otherwise helpless NPCs, and creating unnecessary drama rather than working as a team to help fulfill larger campaign and player goals (which the GM has provided many).

My options don't seem to be very good:

1. Scratch out a new more villainous character to run with this crowd of rascals and try to transfer my current character to another game in the setting.
2. Bow out of the game entirely (this is the second time this sort of drama has cropped up).
3. Keep going and try to hold things together through various kinds of diplomatic table play (which has proved to be quite challenging thus far).

Thoughts?

[The Wizard of Id]

If your a player in this game it sounds like a possible failure of the DM to me honestly, on multiple points.

First, the DM should of picked up on the banter which apparently was going on for some time, and warned them that acts such as that can lead to alignment shifts (and other implications). Although, it sounds like this is the type of player who enjoys "competing" against the GM, and expects that every other player at the table has the same values, and enjoys the game in the same way as them. This player, when finding another player with similar values likes talking crap behind his/her's back.

Second possible failure was the control of the Yorick character. When ever I have party controlled NPCS I always think back to that line in the spell suggestion. "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable." To me, regardless of motivation an NPC would not charge headlong into the gaping maw of a dragon unless very special conditions were met.

The third failure I see is probably because I have spent wayyyyy too much time behind the screen. The GM, regardless of the quality of the gaming group has to be cognizant of the attitudes and psychology of the players. If the GM's goal was to conduct a story in a certain fashion and these characters, through their OOC plotting deviated irrevocably from that path (especially if I warned them), then DM needs to decided how to handle it.

Personally, both in game and OOC they broke Wheaton's Law, and as a DM I would not hesitate to explain that to them; and the fact that if they continued to act in that manner, they would be asked to leave. I have no time at my table for pretentious players, herding cats, or ones who travel outside the bounds of story and background, after warning, only to shake things up. As a GM I also have a responsibility to insure that all the players in my gaming group feel secure, and are not getting brow beaten or harassed by other players.

That being said, I would attempt to talk to the DM, because he/she might not even know that they are talking bad of them. As for your options:
Option 1) Could be fun, but these players will continue to run rough-shod over the GM
Option 2) That's letting them win
Option 3) Not entirely fun for you, unless you secretly just have fun mentally outmaneuvering them on a nightly basis.

You should focus on option 4) Which is see if the GM will reign in those players.
If he/she will then its possible that you will feel comfortable with the group again, and can continue the adventure.

[Froth Maw]

I had an awesome lvl 4 chaotic evil barbarian that everyone loved, but our party was led by a lvl 9 lawful evil air sorcerer who just drug everyone along on a quest to win himself some political power instead of doing fun stuff. After going off on my own and then being wrangled back into the main story by the DM, I took option 1, had my old character ride off into the sunset with some half orcs and made a new guy. It was the only thing that made sense character wise. I think it's your best option, and now that you'd be playing an evil character, you could turn on them and kill them.

[Lincoln Hills]

I advise against Froth Maw's last bit of advice. Vengeance, particularly petty gamer vengeance, is a circle with no end. But I agree with his principal point, which is that the players apparently decided to run an antihero game and you're better off asking the GM to let you phase out the cleric (who can stick around as an NPC, possibly someday as an antagonist) and bring in whatever kind of scoundrel character you might enjoy playing.

Also, the German word you're thining of is schaudenfreude. (I don't know much German, but I know a useful word when I see one!)

[Cap. Darling]

Froth Maw wrote:

I had an awesome lvl 4 chaotic evil barbarian that everyone loved, but our party was led by a lvl 9 lawful evil air sorcerer who just drug everyone along on a quest to win himself some political power instead of doing fun stuff. After going off on my own and then being wrangled back into the main story by the DM, I took option 1, had my old character ride off into the sunset with some half orcs and made a new guy. It was the only thing that made sense character wise. I think it's your best option, and now that you'd be playing an evil character, you could turn on them and kill them.

You May want to reread the OP. And pehaps talk to your group as well:)

And to the OP ignore this guy and take this up with the GM. Ask how he/she sees the situation and explain how this is taking away your fun. This sounds like a problem that is more out of game than in.

[Froth Maw]

You May want to reread the OP. And pehaps talk to your group as well:)

Why? Just wondering. Option 1 was to make a character more suited to the party, yes? That's what I did, and that's what I'd advise doing. Sounds like the DM is soft and won't do anything about it if he's already let them get out of control.

[Zhayne]

They were referring to the 'turn on them and kill them' part of your advice, Frost. That is NEVER a good idea.

I'd go #2, myself. I refuse to play an evil character, and since these guys are apparently in it for the evulz, I wouldn't want to game with them.

[Froth Maw]

Ah. I suppose it isn't the greatest advice given her party members' reactions when they didn't get their way. No rest for the wicked though. With evil party members you're usually going to have some PC on PC violence unless you've got some kind of evil code of honor.

[Zhayne]

Or unless the GM just says 'no PvP, period'.

[Ashiel]

Zhayne wrote:

Or unless the GM just says 'no PvP, period'.

This is a PvE server. :3

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I know some players and especially some GM's love to see love hate relationships, arguments, ethical/moral quandaries, and maybe even violence between party members. After all, it makes for some very entertaining and suspenseful novels.

Remember it works out that way in a novel because the single author controls what actually happens. His feelings don't get hurt because one of his characters is mean to another one of his characters.

It doesn't always work out that well in a RPG. Some players get very invested in their PC's and get very emotional about these kinds of intra-party conflicts. I have seen long term gaming groups implode and life long friends break up over this.

Some individuals and some groups can handle it. Many can not. In one of my current group I would say they are fairly evenly split between the 2 types of players. There are a couple that want to play evil PC's trying to also gain power over each other while also accomplishing some other goal. I won't run that campaign, because I know at least 3 of them (including one of those clamoring for the evil campaign) will get genuinely real word angry when the others do something to his character.

[Chromnos]

Froth Maw wrote:

Ah. I suppose it isn't the greatest advice given her party members' reactions when they didn't get their way. No rest for the wicked though. With evil party members you're usually going to have some PC on PC violence unless you've got some kind of evil code of honor.

Just wanted to drop by and thank everyone for the helpful replies.

Would never go for the party fratricide. That's, as another poster wisely said, a circle with no end. In general, I see the evil party as the circle with no end as well. A kind of ongoing negative character development. Works in novels, doesn't usually work well in a co-op team game like D&D/Pathfinder.

Am leaning toward #2, if a bit sadly. It's one thing to play a character who seems dark, another entirely to lust for the suffering of others, which I'm not sure I can manage to get my head around.

[Chromnos]

As a side note, has anyone played a game with an all good group + benevolent players? I play in one game where the team element is fantastic and the group are mostly good folk, though, in game, there's a little shady dealing and the characters are mostly scoundrels as written. And I'm not talking about paladins, just good folk playing good characters. It would be nice to see one of these once in a while.

[Deadmanwalking]

A bit off-topic, but the most united and friendly (to each other, anyway) party I ever played in were all Evil (okay, there was a LN Hobgoblin Druid...but everyone else was Evil). We didn't even have individual treasure in that game, pooling wealth, and never even fought over, well, basically anything. And that group included a couple of CE characters.

So...I'd strongly argue that inter-party conflict has a lot more to do with the players and how well they create the characters to work together than it does with Alignment or anything like that.

[The Wizard of Id]

A lot of my campaigns are like what your asking about Chromnos. First, I make sure that the players I play with are grounded, genuinely good folks, who expect the same things from the game as I do. Secondly, I preface from the get-go if the "vibe" of the campaign will be "good" or "evil". Most of my "good" campaigns are NG,LN,N,CN,CG. I find that the gaming sessions are more enjoyable when the players are working together toward a goal than having intrigue for intrigue's sake. They may deviate from the alignment definition, but most of their decisions are based off of their alignments. They may also bicker amongst each other as players once in a while over who gets that sweet longsword +2, but most often they look at it as "who can benefit the party the most", not "how can i get it to benefit me".

A example of one past campaign I ran is I had one local group that were the "Evil" party, and a online group who were the "Good" party. Both coexisted in the same campaign and depending on location/timeline would run into each other and battle it out. This gave me a chance to game with a old friend who moved away and create exciting game play. Overall it worked really well, even the evil characters kept their eye on the prize and I had little to no in fighting amongst players because they knew what the deal was. I guess that is what comes from players playing a evil alignment character who are not attempting to make it more than it is.

In all of it though, I feel that a fair, level headed GM who is there to spin the story and mediate the players and the rules is important. I have seen even the most benevolent player get wrapped up in character optimization, personal quests for that one cool item they want, or get angry over something another player did. It is these times a GM needs to step in and ask the player of why their playing, and let them realize that they took things too far.

[Diego Rossi]

As a GM that has been there and done that, your post make me suspect that the GM is using your character as a plot hook for most of his adventures.
Sure, he is willing to accept other players input and give them chances for character development if they ask for it. The problem is that some player don't want to ask or don't know what to ask but at the same time feel that he is denied some space in the spotlight.
This kind of meta plot can have been their way to try to take control of part of the tale your group is telling. Clumsy and off character (the player of a paladin supporting that?), but still something that they feel they needed.
You could suggest the GM to contact the guys and to try to discover what they want in the current campaign. That probably can more useful that changing your character, as if you tend to make colourful characters with easy story hooks and the others tend to make more amorphous character this situation will repeat and the other players will feel even more frustrated.

[Chromnos]

Diego Rossi wrote:

As a GM that has been there and done that, your post make me suspect that the GM is using your character as a plot hook for most of his adventures.

Sure, he is willing to accept other players input and give them chances for character development if they ask for it. The problem is that some player don't want to ask or don't know what to ask but at the same time feel that he is denied some space in the spotlight.
This kind of meta plot can have been their way to try to take control of part of the tale your group is telling. Clumsy and off character (the player of a paladin supporting that?), but still something that they feel they needed.
You could suggest the GM to contact the guys and to try to discover what they want in the current campaign. That probably can more useful that changing your character, as if you tend to make colourful characters with easy story hooks and the others tend to make more amorphous character this situation will repeat and the other players will feel even more frustrated.

The GM does take an active role in character development, however it always helps to have player input. The particular character I currently play has a large role in the campaign background but a far smaller role in the current story arc. Adventures have focused on other character back stories and not mine, for example.

IF having a colorful character was the only issue, it would be much easier for me to gracefully back out of the character and take on another. That said, there's a separate issue of having trouble with playing in a party that is not just 'dark' but taking joy from the harm and which, to my view, seems to have a couple members actively instigating party conflict. One of the characters, for example, seemed to intentionally develop his back story as a kind of anti-hero to my hero sub-type. This seemed to me a kind of sabotage and was a source of previous drama. It generated direct competition in party and has been a source of underlying tension ever since as it has stymied my character development.

[Bandw2]

on the talk of PVP, if you want to have your PC break away from the group and try to kill the party, you have him wander off into the sunset, make a new character and slip the GM a note saying "he wants kill all da party". Then your GM can do what evs with him.

[Cap. Darling]

Froth Maw wrote:

You May want to reread the OP. And pehaps talk to your group as well:)

Why? Just wondering. Option 1 was to make a character more suited to the party, yes? That's what I did, and that's what I'd advise doing. Sounds like the DM is soft and won't do anything about it if he's already let them get out of control.

I was thinking about the OP asking, not how to ruin his game but, how to save it.

And my suggestion to you about talking to your group was in relation to you sounding like you were playing a level 4 barbar and another party member being a level 9 sorcerer. And you going away on your own and being "wrangled back" i think it sounds like a talk about what you guys want out of the game is over due.
Edit: sorry if i am unclear i am on a Phone and a bit in a hurry.

[Diego Rossi]

Chromnos wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

As a GM that has been there and done that, your post make me suspect that the GM is using your character as a plot hook for most of his adventures.

Sure, he is willing to accept other players input and give them chances for character development if they ask for it. The problem is that some player don't want to ask or don't know what to ask but at the same time feel that he is denied some space in the spotlight.
This kind of meta plot can have been their way to try to take control of part of the tale your group is telling. Clumsy and off character (the player of a paladin supporting that?), but still something that they feel they needed.
You could suggest the GM to contact the guys and to try to discover what they want in the current campaign. That probably can more useful that changing your character, as if you tend to make colourful characters with easy story hooks and the others tend to make more amorphous character this situation will repeat and the other players will feel even more frustrated.

The GM does take an active role in character development, however it always helps to have player input. The particular character I currently play has a large role in the campaign background but a far smaller role in the current story arc. Adventures have focused on other character back stories and not mine, for example.

IF having a colorful character was the only issue, it would be much easier for me to gracefully back out of the character and take on another. That said, there's a separate issue of having trouble with playing in a party that is not just 'dark' but taking joy from the harm and which, to my view, seems to have a couple members actively instigating party conflict. One of the characters, for example, seemed to intentionally develop his back story as a kind of anti-hero to my hero sub-type. This seemed to me a kind of sabotage and was a source of previous drama. It generated direct competition in party and has been a source of underlying tension ever...

Then the best advice is to try to find a playing group more congenial to your tastes.

If someone like to inflict imaginary pain to NPC and someone don't playing together can be problematic.
I know how you feel as even in solitary games like Fallout there are options I wouldn't take because they go against my vision of my character.

[Zhayne]

Chromnos wrote:

As a side note, has anyone played a game with an all good group + benevolent players? I play in one game where the team element is fantastic and the group are mostly good folk, though, in game, there's a little shady dealing and the characters are mostly scoundrels as written. And I'm not talking about paladins, just good folk playing good characters. It would be nice to see one of these once in a while.

That's generally SOP for groups I'll play in.

[Chromnos]

Zhayne wrote:

That's generally SOP for groups I'll play in.

Dude, where are you located? ;)

In any case, thanks for the advice, everyone. Will probably just bow out of this one as the game has devolved into something that's not enjoyable for me and the chances for continued/escalating tensions are pretty high.

[Calybos1]

Chromnos wrote:

The current rulers are demon-possessed murder hobos that are rapidly running the whole place into the ground.

So, they're typical PCs?

[Lincoln Hills]

Calybos1 wrote:

Chromnos wrote:

...demon-possessed murder hobos that are rapidly running the whole place into the ground.

So, they're typical PCs?

Well, typical for the kind of PCs we always hear about on the boards. I suspect GMs don't advertise their well-behaved players because they don't want other GMs to come sniffing around, trying to seduce away players with promises of candy and XP.

[pachristian]

On the original post:

Quit the group while you can. It's going to go into toxic breakdown, and people who didn't want to have any part of it will be blamed.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

Chromnos wrote:

...demon-possessed murder hobos that are rapidly running the whole place into the ground.

So, they're typical PCs?

Well, typical for the kind of PCs we always hear about on the boards. I suspect GMs don't advertise their well-behaved players because they don't want other GMs to come sniffing around, trying to seduce away players with promises of candy and XP.

Had the opposite problem once. The PC's said they wanted more tough combats. So I bought a module that pretty much expects the PC's to be murderhobos.

Then they went through trying to investigate mysteries that weren't there, make friends with the maniacal serial killer vampire, cure the lycanthrope, negotiate the release of hostages, etc...

All great things that most GM's really want the PC's to do. None of it planned for in the module (so I had to make stuff up like crazy). And specifically not what they said they were looking run through that time.

It was kinda weird.