⦵
|
Did you ask the players about it? (especially the infamy invoking player) [Also as a side note, make sure you inform the infamy provoking player that they will get infamy for their action]
The point of this game is for people to enjoy an experience together. The point of the no pvp rule is so that, said enjoyment is inherently safe. If however, all of the players are okay with some nonlethal pvp, the point of the game has not been compromised.
(This is what I would do after the above) As another option, if the player(s) is/are being particularly obstinate, and the infamy action would affect the team's overall mission outcome, then apologize and tell the infamy invoking player that they cannot do the action they want to. OR just have the game intervene in some way to stop aforementioned infamy act (with a mistake or NPC or something).
That said, if the action does not affect the team's overall mission, apologize to the rest of the team that any kind of pvp is not allowed, and award the player with an infamy. Do note that if their act is particularly heinous, the guide states that you can award them with 3 infamy (or something like that that makes their character unplayable, resulting in some fame expenditure).
[I encourage you to refer to the guide and read about infamy]
⦵⦵
|
Charge them infamy for each individual innocent murdered. Should solve the problem with a problem character.
While the non murderous PCs cannot shoot Demolition man there, there's nothing stopping them from calling the police and or the bad guys and telling them about the nut outside with a bomb
(how do you even as a character get an option to blow up a building? There's no character option i'm aware of that does that and I don't think thats on accident...)
|
⦵
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might be a hypothetical, but there are infamy options spelled out in scenarios and pushing a button to blow something up could very well be written into the story.
If the players at the table seem genuinely distressed, call a table time out and have each side walk through their reasoning so you can see if there's a way to accomadate the situation without hurt feelings.
For example:
Player A may be working on a boon that is powered by Infamy.
Player B may be concerned that Player A's action may negatively affect their Fame reward.
If it does not, go ahead and tell them that so Player B can release his anxiety. If it does, go ahead and tell them that. Maybe Player A didn't realize. Maybe Player A can forgo this Infamy and look for a different opportunity.
|
⦵
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I've handled stuff like this is to narratively summarise the "good" PCs' attempt to stop the "bad" PC from doing something evil, with the story always ending the same way: the "bad" PC got away with it for now, but his actions are going to catch up with him someday soon (Infamy). The idea is that this allows the good PCs to act "in character" (they did their best) while not limiting the autonomy of the bad PC and not actually getting into PvP.
Example:
Player A: I'm going to steal the cashbox from behind the bar!
Player B: My priest of Abadar wouldn't stand for that. I cast hold person.
GM: The spell seems to work for a second, but he shakes free and darts in to grab the money. It's his for now, but the security cameras in the ceiling will ensure that word of what happened will slowly spread.
