PC vs PC conflict: How do you handle it?


Advice

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you abandon your party, your neutral.

If you abandon your party AND lock the door behind them, your evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the OP defends the running away with the alignment of his character and considering that he just met the group.
Fair enough, it makes sense so far.
The caving in however is absolutely something the player didn't have to add to it. This is where the "team" part of the game should kick in.
The question that should be asked is, would NOT sealing them inside go against his character/alignment? No.

What I wonder is, how would a group ever again trust this fellow as a party member? Isn't that asking the rest of the group to metagame for the sake of 1 character, the very same thing OP was quite adamant against by escaping and caving them all in?
There is no way any sane group would let this person travel with them again, putting themselves in numerous dangers and trusting him to have their back. They just met him after all.

Anyway what's the problem with retiring the character to NPC status? OP was fine with the rest of the group potentially rolling new chars after events in the cave. From a group and story perspective surely it is nicer if only 1 player needs to create a new character.


Lostcause78 wrote:

So the OP defends the running away with the alignment of his character and considering that he just met the group.

Fair enough, it makes sense so far.
The caving in however is absolutely something the player didn't have to add to it. This is where the "team" part of the game should kick in.
The question that should be asked is, would NOT sealing them inside go against his character/alignment? No.

What I wonder is, how would a group ever again trust this fellow as a party member? Isn't that asking the rest of the group to metagame for the sake of 1 character, the very same thing OP was quite adamant against by escaping and caving them all in?
There is no way any sane group would let this person travel with them again, putting themselves in numerous dangers and trusting him to have their back. They just met him after all.

Anyway what's the problem with retiring the character to NPC status? OP was fine with the rest of the group potentially rolling new chars after events in the cave. From a group and story perspective surely it is nicer if only 1 player needs to create a new character.

I agree with the bolded section. If we were playing without metagaming I doubt he would get back in the group unless everyone was on board and agree with his logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yeah, I say "retire"(quotes because you just started him right?) the character.

Grand Lodge

Paladins are a-holes. You think you not being healed @ 2 hp is bad?

I was playing a NG cleric in a party with a paladin. We where level 8 and just finished the last fight of the dungeon and via shield other my cleric went down to -7 hp. I beat the stablize and unconcious.

The paladin then carries my unconscious body out to the camp to let me recover naturally instead of using a single LOH. He had 4 left for the day. Shield other still on and all. OOC I asked to be brought to conciousness so I could heal all of us and have full resources tomorrow. The paladin of the same Fing God said no heal naturally since he persummed the fighting was over.

This came from the same guy I pulled his corpse out from under a demon and got him resurrected. The guy I kept alive day in and day out wouldn't even waste 1 LoG when I needed it.

Needless to say when my character woke up she took to the additude of your taking all the damage now (no shield other) and your healing all your HP and status problems. Need a restoration...buy a scroll.

My biggest thing is if everyone is cooperating in a group to achieve the same goal then those people should treat each other with decency. You dont have to respect them but if your playing a character who is suppost to be spreading good and mercy and you bring dickishness then you deserve to be booted from the adventuring group or treated as a hypocrite to your cause and priesthood.

Sovereign Court

@Fruian -

You didn't read the whole thread - did you? The OP later admitted to having caused a cave-in to trap the rest of the party in with powerful undead. Hence the paladin's entirely reasonable suspicion.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No sorry hard to read 3 pages of text. I read first few from the OP. Didnt read page 2.

TLDR lol


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In one of my earliest games, I recall having the rest of the party wanting to track down and kill my PC after he fled from a seemingly hopeless battle. And I didn't even do anything to stop the rest of the party from fleeing -- the only thing stopping them was that BBEG who was dropping one PC each round.

Sovereign Court

Fair enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with pretty much everything Taku has said.

I've found an outright ban on PvP is generally more common amongst less experienced GMs or newly formed groups who are not able to deal with multi-dimensional planning & conflict. Which is fine, it's a learning curve, but implying "you’re doing it wrong" because someone else can't handle it is almost as insulting as it is laughable.

PvP for adults:

Most mature groups I've played with can handle the option for PvP, even if it is never initiated. We've found that the opposite "there is no PvP, so you can't actually stop Bob the Moron (appropriate apologies to those who share the name Bob) from ruining everything because he's had a bad week and now has decided to run his mouth or attack the +10 CR NPC" is far more destructive. Doubly true if you have new players.

Mixed alignment parties are a thing. They SHOULD generate conflict. Sometimes conflict escalates to violence (hopefully entirely in-game), sometimes it leads to some great RP, sometimes it leads to character growth and development, and on awesome-yet-rare-occasions (under the most optimal circumstances) it leads to player growth and development.

That said, keep it in game. If you respond to your character getting killed by creating a character whose only purpose is to kill whoever killed you … well, that's frowned on. “Frowned on” like using loaded dice, drinking another man's milk after being forbidden*, or reading the module ahead of time so your PC will know what's going to happen. In other words, you're being a metagaming asshat. Don't be a metagaming asshat, it leads to sad mogwai's and cybernetically enhanced gremlins in power armor who think it’s funny to draw Hitler mustaches on Baby Jesus. (This message brought to you by polite folks at SPCEGAPA [the Society to Prevent Cybernetically Enhanced Gremlins from Acquiring Power Armor]).

*redacted as this IS asshattery, but not metagaming/cheating

-TimD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Virellius wrote:
Like I said, the party was dying anyway, and my pc had JUST started travelong with them. She had no allegience or reason to die with them.

Well then, don't expect them to have allegience to her either. Why should they bother healing her when she's running away?

What she did is something a back-stabbing NPC would do. What's happening to your character is called 'taking the consequences'.

The problem here is that you're not giving them any reason to trust her. You're giving them plenty reasons not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:

I disagree with pretty much everything Taku has said.

I've found an outright ban on PvP is generally more common amongst less experienced GMs or newly formed groups who are not able to deal with multi-dimensional planning & conflict. Which is fine, it's a learning curve, but implying "you’re doing it wrong" because someone else can't handle it is almost as insulting as it is laughable.

** spoiler omitted **

-TimD

I will agree with you that saying any one that allows PvP is doing it wrong is taking way too extreme of a stance.

I am quite willing to say that in most groups, allowing PvP is probably not the best choice.

You are also correct in that it can be excellent. I have been in 2 groups that handled it very well and we had a blast.
But only if the entire group is ok with it (and I would say it should be clearly stated in the beginning that it will be allowed). If even one person in the group does not handle the PvP situations well, it tends to harm the player group. Sometimes slightly. Sometimes greatly. Other than those 2 groups, every time PvP was allowed it caused problems. Sometimes to the point of breaking up the gaming group or at least the campaign. Once destroying several long term friendships.

I also wish people would stop using 'adult' and 'mature' for this topic. It has nothing to do with age or maturity. One of the groups that did it well was when we were ~14. We were not adults and I guarantee you we were not mature.

I also know many well aged and very mature players that do not deal well with allowing PvP in their game.

It is a mindset. A way of looking at things. The ability to separate player vs PC feelings. The ability to take a mindset and personality that is alien to your own. And accept that others can and are doing the same. Not everyone can do that.

Then there are some people that can handle it, but just don't want to deal with that much hassle. I am sometimes in that group. This pastime is an escape from the reality and is intended to be entertaining. Fairly often, I don't find paranoia in guarding myself from murder by my closest colleagues to be entertaining.

Most groups I have played with have at least one person (usually several) that can not handle it well or doesn't want to deal with it.

When I am GM, I will not allow PvP with my current primary group even when they have asked to include it. We have at least 2 people out of the 7 that don't deal well with the situations when it even comes close to looking like PvP is likely. One gets nervous and agitated. The other gets quiet and withdrawn. But they are definitely not having fun in those situations. Just coincidentally, 'stuff' comes up and they are rarely able to make it to the next couple of gaming session. I'm not sure the one guy is even coming back. I don't think most of the other players or the GM at that time have even noticed since they won't say anything.

TimD wrote:
... We've found that the opposite "there is no PvP, so you can't actually stop Bob the Moron (appropriate apologies to those who share the name Bob) from ruining everything because he's had a bad week and now has decided to run his mouth or attack the +10 CR NPC" is far more destructive. Doubly true if you have new players. ...

This I very much disagree with. Passive aggressive in-game punishment does not solve out-of-game personal issues. Talk to the player out of character. If it is an in-game problem (which is not what you described) the group can in-character decide there is no reason to continue traveling with someone that makes things worse. Murder is not necessary.

I especially think that is a very jack-hole thing to do to new players that aren't doing what you think is right.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Paladin should use Detect Evil, if he doesn't detect you as evil he can assume that you are not unless your actions are obviously evil (committing violent crimes against innocent people is an example).

My point is this: PCvPC should ~never~ take place because characters who are built to kill people are going to win.

Alternatively there is the vicious option where you attempt to give them their comeuppance, but expect to leave the group after that.
If the Paladin kills your character you should create a paladin killer. If the group stops you, create a group killer. If they want to play an arms race of seeing who can be the...

Wont work, no matter how evil, since he's not high enuf level.

True.

This is very bad advice.

But honestly the Paladin is going about it wrong. What he should have said is "Rogue, you're out of the group. Bye-bye".

Players and PCs need to do that more often against Richard-head PC's. Just say "No, you're not part of the party."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lostcause78 wrote:

What I wonder is, how would a group ever again trust this fellow as a party member? Isn't that asking the rest of the group to metagame for the sake of 1 character, the very same thing OP was quite adamant against by escaping and caving them all in?
There is no way any sane group would let this person travel with them again, putting themselves in numerous dangers and trusting him to have their back. They just met him after all.

Anyway what's the problem with retiring the character to NPC status? OP was fine with the rest of the group potentially rolling new chars after events in the cave. From a group and story perspective surely it is nicer if only 1 player needs to create a new character.

Right, he needs to be "Un-invited", and OP, you should just do this yourself. Just bring in a new PC, who is a Team player.


TimD wrote:

I disagree with pretty much everything Taku has said.

I've found an outright ban on PvP is generally more common amongst less experienced GMs or newly formed groups who are not able to deal with multi-dimensional planning & conflict. Which is fine, it's a learning curve, but implying "you’re doing it wrong" because someone else can't handle it is almost as insulting as it is laughable.

** spoiler omitted **

-TimD

Pretty hard to get more mature than my group, and since we are, there's no need for PvP as we dont act like jerks in the first place. If your group was truly mature, then no-one would act like a jerk or if they did as they had a bad day, the other players would 'talk him down" OOC.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TimD wrote:
I've found an outright ban on PvP is generally more common amongst less experienced GMs or newly formed groups who are not able to deal with multi-dimensional planning & conflict. Which is fine, it's a learning curve, but implying "you’re doing it wrong" because someone else can't handle it is almost as insulting as it is laughable.

Aren't you basically saying "Anyone not doing it is not mature enough to do it right" in your post? Seems a bit presumptuous.

Your message is mixed. Might want to think on that.


I'm kinda surprised that a lot of people are ignoring the fact that the OP's character warned the other players of a dangerous trap and they ignored that warning.

What I'm trying to say is this. There's being a team player, and then there's throwing reason and logic to the wind and going on an obvious suicide run. This was the latter. The only reason it didn't wind up a TPK was the DM decided against it. Had things taken their natural course, the party would all be dead and the CN character would be all that was left. This situation was created by the DM.

Now assume for a minute that I was the player of the Paladin. I ignored a warning from the CN character and walked headlong into a trap which I only lived through because of DM fiat. That's the point where a player is supposed to learn a lesson, not hold grudges.

Now I'd approach everything past that point with the assumption that I would have otherwise been dead and taken it with a grain of salt. I'd come to the collapsed entrance and say to myself as a player: "Ok, the guy did this because it was a dire situation and it looked like we were all going to die anyways. No problem, we can dig our way out easy." Sure, my pride would have been wounded a bit from being in such a situation. But when players act out of spite, as the Paladin did, that's when things get rocky.

Humility is an important aspect of being a team player, and it seems the Paladin has displayed nothing but hubris. That is a player decision. Just because you play a Paladin doesn't mean your character (or you as a player) has to be devoid of humility and understanding. When a fellow PC warns my PC of an impending danger, I heed that warning and try to act accordingly. I don't completely ignore them, no matter what character class or alignment I'm playing.

Being a team player is a two way street. You can't expect a player to follow along with a stupid plan when his warnings were completely ignored.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post. If what you're posting isn't actually advice, keep it out of the Advice forums.


BackHandOfFate wrote:

I'm kinda surprised that a lot of people are ignoring the fact that the OP's character warned the other players of a dangerous trap and they ignored that warning.

What I'm trying to say is this. There's being a team player, and then there's throwing reason and logic to the wind and going on an obvious suicide run. This was the latter. The only reason it didn't wind up a TPK was the DM decided against it. Had things taken their natural course, the party would all be dead and the CN character would be all that was left. This situation was created by the DM.

Now assume for a minute that I was the player of the Paladin. I ignored a warning from the CN character and walked headlong into a trap which I only lived through because of DM fiat. That's the point where a player is supposed to learn a lesson, not hold grudges.

Now I'd approach everything past that point with the assumption that I would have otherwise been dead and taken it with a grain of salt. I'd come to the collapsed entrance and say to myself as a player: "Ok, the guy did this because it was a dire situation and it looked like we were all going to die anyways. No problem, we can dig our way out easy." Sure, my pride would have been wounded a bit from being in such a situation. But when players act out of spite, as the Paladin did, that's when things get rocky.

Humility is an important aspect of being a team player, and it seems the Paladin has displayed nothing but hubris. That is a player decision. Just because you play a Paladin doesn't mean your character (or you as a player) has to be devoid of humility and understanding. When a fellow PC warns my PC of an impending danger, I heed that warning and try to act accordingly. I don't completely ignore them, no matter what character class or alignment I'm playing.

Being a team player is a two way street. You can't expect a player to follow along with a stupid plan when his warnings were completely ignored.

You actually hit the same topic i was going to. Everyone has been talking about how the player blocked everyone in, not with how the rest of the party ignored them, and then getting mad at them because they did what would have made sense in the situation that was only corrected by divine intervention/gm fiat.


Valid point on the mixed message.

To clarify, I can see groups who have only recently formed or added new folks not wanting to risk PvP and its out-of-game ramifications if all players are not invested in "keeping everything in game" and are likely to become upset out of game at what occurs in game. Likewise, not all style of game play are fun for all player types. I play with a variety of groups in a variety of games & gaming styles. Some are almost exclusively PvP and some are, well, PFS. The implication that only bad GMs allow PvP is completely false, however, so my post was likely a bit over the top to argue that point.

Did not intend to imply that groups who disallow PvP are doing it wrong. Rereading my post, I can see how I came across that way.

-TimD


I don't think it's been made clear if the GM fiat was necessary because the fight was hopeless from the start, or because the party was one PC short, or because the party was trapped by the OP. If GM intervention was necessary because of the OP's actions, the paladin was right to seek retribution, and was probably right anyway simply because of the strong perception of betrayal.

The paladin was wrong not to heal the OP, who registers as indeterminate to detect evil. The OP was in need of healing, and the paladin should have helped. Unless he saw the OP as an enemy, in which case he should never have agreed to be in the same party in the first place. Either way, he was in the wrong on that note. (That said, the question of whether the paladin should fall isn't remotely valid, and paladin baiting is extremely lame.)

I think caving in the entrance was played out of alignment. CN characters don't generally claim to act for the greater good. They do what they think is a good idea at the time ("good" as in self-interest), and have no strong inclination towards good or evil. If the OP's character is consistently going to act for the greater good, she needs to be CG, not CN.

The paladin owes the rogue a debt for poor treatment and for sparing his life. But the rogue owes the party a much larger debt for abandoning them and trapping them. I don't see how this group can move forward without a huge act of contrition, which the rogue wouldn't feel is owed unless her survival hinges on being in this group, or she recognizes the fact that the group has divine mandate.

In any event, the OP's character is the one that has to change, whether by re-rolling or by making recompense and changing alignment. The group probably isn't going to allow the rogue to continue with them otherwise.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BackHandOfFate wrote:

I'm kinda surprised that a lot of people are ignoring the fact that the OP's character warned the other players of a dangerous trap and they ignored that warning.

What I'm trying to say is this. There's being a team player, and then there's throwing reason and logic to the wind and going on an obvious suicide run. This was the latter. The only reason it didn't wind up a TPK was the DM decided against it. Had things taken their natural course, the party would all be dead and the CN character would be all that was left. This situation was created by the DM...

Keep in mind the only view we have is someone whose judgement led them to trapping the party. He thought a series of events would follow, told the party what to do, and when the party chose otherwise he sealed them in with the added bonus of citing "hey, I just met these guys" as part of his reasoning.

That is not a helpful way to resolve P v. P issues, to put it politely.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The party was up against three class-leveed anti-party members and a skeletal champion ogre and summoned creatures. My PC had almost no hp and our tank was near dead. We had fought through a dungeon with the ambushing enemies right behind us, and the party ignored my every 'theyre gonna jump us' by dismissing it with 'oh, they dont seem so bad' despite them saying they were here to check out the necromancer, and the (normally super antiundead) paladin giving them permission to study necromancy. Also, my PC is a magus. Not a rogue.


Virellius wrote:
How do you deal (as a player, not a DM in this case) with players who are hostile towards you just as a rule? Its not like either player is evil or malicious, but the other people just really dont like your pc? For example, ally paladin choses not to lay on hands me because he thinks I'm evil (I'm not) which almost kills me (2hp from the grave). He also attacked me when I fled an encounter that, if not for gm fiat, would have been a tpk. Wat do?

Coup de gras. Mind you this is my Lawful Evil assassin so take that with a grain of salt.


Hudax wrote:
In any event, the OP's character is the one that has to change, whether by re-rolling or by making recompense and changing alignment. The group probably isn't going to allow the rogue to continue with them otherwise.

I think the OP's character isn't the only one who needs to change. Sure, there might be some need for a resolution to all this. But, as you pointed out, it should also involve the Paladin making some sort of effort as well.

Virellius wrote:
The party was up against three class-leveed anti-party members and a skeletal champion ogre and summoned creatures. My PC had almost no hp and our tank was near dead. We had fought through a dungeon with the ambushing enemies right behind us, and the party ignored my every 'theyre gonna jump us' by dismissing it with 'oh, they dont seem so bad' despite them saying they were here to check out the necromancer, and the (normally super antiundead) paladin giving them permission to study necromancy. Also, my PC is a magus. Not a rogue.

Ok yeah, that's a great deal more specific. I would have probably done the same thing in your shoes. A party that is not at full power should act with a great deal more caution or otherwise expect something like that to happen.

Also, I figured your character wasn't a rogue when you said they beat a Paladin in a duel. :p


Virellius, something is puzzling me; how could the Paladin be unaware that you are not evil? Did he not attempt to Smite you during the duel?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

He is a paladin. All cha, no int.


RumpinRufus wrote:

Keep in mind that the paladin is obligated to not help you if you consistently offend his moral code. If he really thinks you are evil, or even not evil but morally offensive, he could fall if he aids you. Healing you because "we're in the same party" is borderline metagaming.

The point in question is here:

SRD wrote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

I think you're reading this really wrong. First off, a Paladin is morally obligated to help those in need as long as they aren't actively using it for evil or chaotic ends. Secondly, if the character is "consistently offend[ing] her moral code" then the paladin is prohibited from working together; i.e., being in the same party.


Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

Paladins are a-holes. You think you not being healed @ 2 hp is bad?

I was playing a NG cleric in a party with a paladin. We where level 8 and just finished the last fight of the dungeon and via shield other my cleric went down to -7 hp. I beat the stablize and unconcious.

The paladin then carries my unconscious body out to the camp to let me recover naturally instead of using a single LOH. He had 4 left for the day. Shield other still on and all. OOC I asked to be brought to conciousness so I could heal all of us and have full resources tomorrow. The paladin of the same Fing God said no heal naturally since he persummed the fighting was over.

You have a strange GM. That's a very clear, rather major violation of the paladin's code of conduct.


TimD wrote:
I disagree with pretty much everything Taku has said.

That is fine, I stated my opinion, and while everyone has an opinion these might not be particularly good ones. Whether or not either of our or anyone else's opinions are good is up to the readers.

I ban PcvPc because I've had players pretty much permanently leave the group after being killed in PcvPc. Allow me to not "imply" but to outright state: PvP in a Co-op game that is not designed to allow for that is stupid, and by encouraging or even allowing such actions to even be taken is "doing it wrong." This is a co-op game that requires 5 people even if it can be played with 2.

The PCs are friends at best or frenemies at worst, mostly because there is no flipping way, regardless of what you claim or say, that your character would ever trust someone who tried to put a knife in his back with his back. The only exceptions being extreme circumstances or vices leading them into common work.

DrDeth wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Paladin should use Detect Evil, if he doesn't detect you as evil he can assume that you are not unless your actions are obviously evil (committing violent crimes against innocent people is an example).
Wont work, no matter how evil, since he's not high enuf level.
The Paladin may or may not know the limitation of his spell. In time the rogue would get 5hd, and he would be revealed as good or evil.
DrDeth wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
My point is this: PCvPC should ~never~ take place because characters who are built to kill people are going to win.
True
I see we are in accord.
DrDeth wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Alternatively there is the vicious option where you attempt to give them their comeuppance, but expect to leave the group after that.
This is very bad advice.
Oh, I know, that is why I stated that he should leave the group after doing so if he decides he wants to be vicious about leaving the group.
DrDeth wrote:

But honestly the Paladin is going about it wrong. What he should have said is "Rogue, you're out of the group. Bye-bye".

Players and PCs need to do that more often against Richard-head PC's. Just say "No, you're not part of the party."

Yeah, pretty much.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Xemnas wrote:
BackHandOfFate wrote:

I'm kinda surprised that a lot of people are ignoring the fact that the OP's character warned the other players of a dangerous trap and they ignored that warning.

What I'm trying to say is this. There's being a team player, and then there's throwing reason and logic to the wind and going on an obvious suicide run. This was the latter. The only reason it didn't wind up a TPK was the DM decided against it. Had things taken their natural course, the party would all be dead and the CN character would be all that was left. This situation was created by the DM.

Now assume for a minute that I was the player of the Paladin. I ignored a warning from the CN character and walked headlong into a trap which I only lived through because of DM fiat. That's the point where a player is supposed to learn a lesson, not hold grudges.

Now I'd approach everything past that point with the assumption that I would have otherwise been dead and taken it with a grain of salt. I'd come to the collapsed entrance and say to myself as a player: "Ok, the guy did this because it was a dire situation and it looked like we were all going to die anyways. No problem, we can dig our way out easy." Sure, my pride would have been wounded a bit from being in such a situation. But when players act out of spite, as the Paladin did, that's when things get rocky.

Humility is an important aspect of being a team player, and it seems the Paladin has displayed nothing but hubris. That is a player decision. Just because you play a Paladin doesn't mean your character (or you as a player) has to be devoid of humility and understanding. When a fellow PC warns my PC of an impending danger, I heed that warning and try to act accordingly. I don't completely ignore them, no matter what character class or alignment I'm playing.

Being a team player is a two way street. You can't expect a player to follow along with a stupid plan when his warnings were completely ignored.

You actually hit the same...

we don't actually know the length to which his warning was, or even it's nature. was it considered accurate, was it full-proof proof?


Make a new character, no more betrayal.


Virellius wrote:
How do you deal (as a player, not a DM in this case) with players who are hostile towards you just as a rule? Its not like either player is evil or malicious, but the other people just really dont like your pc? For example, ally paladin choses not to lay on hands me because he thinks I'm evil (I'm not) which almost kills me (2hp from the grave). He also attacked me when I fled an encounter that, if not for gm fiat, would have been a tpk. Wat do?

Find a polite way to ask the guy "Dude, what is your f***ing problem?!"

Fortunately, I have not been saddled with a GM who permits PvP in a good long time.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Virellius wrote:
Like I said, the party was dying anyway, and my pc had JUST started travelong with them. She had no allegience or reason to die with them.

Well then, don't expect them to have allegience to her either. Why should they bother healing her when she's running away?

What she did is something a back-stabbing NPC would do. What's happening to your character is called 'taking the consequences'.

The problem here is that you're not giving them any reason to trust her. You're giving them plenty reasons not to.

This.

I think the best question to ask is this. "What would your character have done... if it had been a random npc that did XXXXXXX"

Claiming that an action is justified 'because of my alignment' doesn't fly if you wouldn't accept it from random faceless dude you just met who then locked you in a cave...

I can't imagine a CN dude offering to heal someone turned on him and locked the door...

ESPECIALLY in a new group. All these characters are basically faceless NPCs to each other... they don't have the years of blood and sweat to get them past the occasional jerkiness.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
Virellius wrote:
How do you deal (as a player, not a DM in this case) with players who are hostile towards you just as a rule? Its not like either player is evil or malicious, but the other people just really dont like your pc? For example, ally paladin choses not to lay on hands me because he thinks I'm evil (I'm not) which almost kills me (2hp from the grave). He also attacked me when I fled an encounter that, if not for gm fiat, would have been a tpk. Wat do?

Find a polite way to ask the guy "Dude, what is your f***ing problem?!"

Fortunately, I have not been saddled with a GM who permits PvP in a good long time.

read the thread, realize he started it, go cry like I did for taking sides.


Bandw2 wrote:
we don't actually know the length to which his warning was, or even it's nature. was it considered accurate, was it full-proof proof?

I believe we do. OP elaborated on the scenario a few posts ago...

Virellius wrote:
The party was up against three class-leveed anti-party members and a skeletal champion ogre and summoned creatures. My PC had almost no hp and our tank was near dead. We had fought through a dungeon with the ambushing enemies right behind us, and the party ignored my every 'theyre gonna jump us' by dismissing it with 'oh, they dont seem so bad' despite them saying they were here to check out the necromancer, and the (normally super antiundead) paladin giving them permission to study necromancy. Also, my PC is a magus. Not a rogue.

Sounds to me like the real issue was the party ignoring the magus's warning, which led to them to being placed in a compromising position. They could have easily turned around and dealt with this threat before it became a huge problem. It probably would have saved lives and possibly made the magus think twice about abandoning ship. The party seems pretty badly injured at this point. So I think it's safe to assume that Magus didn't jump ship at the first sign of trouble. He realized that this course of action would get them all killed, tried to warn the party and then took off when things went deep south.

Being part of a team means you don't purposefully lead your teammates down a dangerous path in a haphazard manner, walking headlong into obvious tactical disadvantages. The party was setting themselves up to be in the middle of a death sandwich and the magus saw it coming a mile away. The rest of the party would be dead if not for the DM. So, I would argue that it was the DM that caused this to become a 'betrayal' instead of 'the one surviving PC trying to keep a bad situation from becoming worse'. This event should not continue to serve to be an albatross on the Magus's neck.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BackHandOfFate wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
we don't actually know the length to which his warning was, or even it's nature. was it considered accurate, was it full-proof proof?

I believe we do. OP elaborated on the scenario a few posts ago...

Virellius wrote:
The party was up against three class-leveed anti-party members and a skeletal champion ogre and summoned creatures. My PC had almost no hp and our tank was near dead. We had fought through a dungeon with the ambushing enemies right behind us, and the party ignored my every 'theyre gonna jump us' by dismissing it with 'oh, they dont seem so bad' despite them saying they were here to check out the necromancer, and the (normally super antiundead) paladin giving them permission to study necromancy. Also, my PC is a magus. Not a rogue.

Sounds to me like the real issue was the party ignoring the magus's warning, which led to them to being placed in a compromising position. They could have easily turned around and dealt with this threat before it became a huge problem. It probably would have saved lives and possibly made the magus think twice about abandoning ship. The party seems pretty badly injured at this point. So I think it's safe to assume that Magus didn't jump ship at the first sign of trouble. He realized that this course of action would get them all killed, tried to warn the party and then took off when things went deep south.

we still don't know if they considered the proof serious/true as characters.

because seriously if you knew ambushes were right behind you, who wouldn't deal with them before the real encounter. and whats up with that necromancer.


Earlier in the thread there were several good posts about in character and out of character talk to clear the problems up. In my groups, it's expected if the GM wants to throw something that we absolutely need to run away from, the GM gets the message to us before we commit ourselves to a TPK. It could be a perfect storm of characters not being clear enough with each other aggravated by GM not giving enough hints subtle or otherwise if their party was indeed in that much danger.

That's a lot of conjecture on my part, but on the question of how to handle unwanted P v. P conflict the GM has responsibility, too. At the very least, a GM does well to know how much intra-party friction the gamers want and how to address that.


A bit late to this thread, but here is my two cents.

This seems like a nice setup for some great party interaction and rollplay, perhaps for a long time to come.

A CN character facing certain death with a group of strangers decides to leave the fools to their fate and takes off, doing what he/she can to make sure the threat is contained. Okay, sounds reasonable. Why would a non-good or non-lawful aligned character agree to a Heroic Last Stand with a bunch of strangers they had only just met?

The group, however, survives and everybody has to live with the repercussions of those actions. As first impressions go, you cannot get much worse, as the character essentially left them in their hour of greatest need. The Paladin is a bit out of line I think for ignoring the fact that the new character collapsed the cave so as to seal in the evil, but overall there should be distrust and concern.

But make that part of the game. Roleplay it out. Maybe not so much as go to the group and ask them "What can I do to get on your good side", but more along the lines of trying to prove yourself and pulling your own weight. Let the group come around to seeing that you (the character) is worthwhile and can be forgiven. But let it flow, don't force it. Make it an underlying storyline to the campaign, or at least your character and his/her motivations.

Actually kind of sounds like a cool setup to me.

But, yeah, on top of that, the Paladin didn't handle it well. Denying healing to a non-evil companion is not right. It actually is not that much better than what your character did in its own way. Something that can be thrown in the Paladin's face whenever an in-character argument occurs.

Inter-party fighting (i.e. actually fighting) is not really allowed at my table, but inter-party tension between a couple party members can be fun and open up good roleplaying. Not suggested for groups that like rollplaying over roleplaying however. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Optimistic Cynic wrote:

A bit late to this thread, but here is my two cents.

This seems like a nice setup for some great party interaction and rollplay, perhaps for a long time to come.

I disagree. The Players are gonna resent the OP leaving them to their death.

Yes, the Paladin was wrong, but only because the logical response of "You're no longer part of this group, bye!" rarely occurs to players to have their PC's say.

It should be said more often.

Shadow Lodge

Ok, I need to weigh in here. So far the only wrong doing in this scenario has been on the part of the GM.

Had this been my game, the OP's party would have been required to reroll their characters when they all died at the hands of the undead, they would then have met up with the OP's character at his next port of call. Mean while, the OP would have been required to reroll a new intelligent Undead character to join the newly minted evil undead characters the OP's actions were responsible for creating.

At that point the campaign sessions would alternate between running the undead party and running the living party and the two groups would be at odds with one another.

Sometimes unexpected things happen and a party dies, as a GM it makes for a better story when you can write those things into the campaign world rather then pulling lame deus-ex to worm your way out of having to do a little extra work.

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / PC vs PC conflict: How do you handle it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.