D&D 5E Advice wanted on Player Vs Player Situation

[Chris633]

Hi everyone, I’ve encountered an interesting dilemma running Rise of Tiamat which actually has nothing to really do with ROT. Some background first: This is a longtime group with relatively mature players. No problem players. At the end of hoard of the dragon queen, a player playing a necromancer (with connections to the cult of the dragon) left the group. That player’s PC ended up becoming a villain later in the campaign. That player was replaced with someone who also decided to play a necromancer (this was well over a year ago). Player definitely plays his character more neutral with flashes of good. I wouldn’t consider him to be playing an evil PC even though he is a necromancer.

So here is the situation. Another player has told me privately that his PC (Harry) has decided that the necromancer-PC (Derek) needs to die. He is a future problem that needs to be solved now. Strike one is that he is a necromancer. Strike two was creating a small force of undead by killing non-evil though non-humanoid creatures (frogs—don’t ask, he has weird ideas and likes experimenting). Strike three was soliciting volunteers to be experimented on in a city (He was attempting cognitive enhancements and transfer of abilities). The volunteers were not the smartest to begin with and may have suffered some brain damage—hard to tell. The other PCs, which includes a paladin, have not taken issue with Derek’s behavior. Harry is a rogue who is trying to reform and use his skill set on bad people.

So Harry plans to kill Derek the next time they stop for the night. I’ve decided to let it play out. They are mature players and I think they can handle this. This is also my first time dealing with this kind of situation. Should I tell the other player what is going to happen next time we play? I am thinking that I should. The PC will get broadsided by this, but maybe the player shouldn’t. Or should I just not tell him and let it play out?

And just for a little perspective—We are at the end of ROT. They will be doing the final Council meeting before the finale after this gets resolved. Though maybe not depending on where this goes.

Thanks in advance for any advice!!

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Taking away control of a PC away from a player for any reason other than mind control magic that they had a chance to resist (and have a chance to overcome) is disrespectful of the player in real life. They came to play DnD, not watch other people play it for them.

You could tell the Harry player he has to save it for the very end of the campaign, when there's no more gameplay left to pursue OTHERWISE the player of the Derek PC has to be informed and agree to such a change, especially since they have to prepare a backup character IF they agree to go along with this twist.

 

[Lanefan]

Well the timing is good - if it's the end of the AP anyway and they want to throw down with each other, I'd say let 'em fight. Just be ready to jump in and enforce that what's in character stays in character. To avoid the temptation of using player knowledge that a character wouldn't have, I would not tip off the intended victim's player ahead of time. I might, however, put out a general nonspecific storm warning to all players at the start of the session, along the lines of "Things might not go as you expect tonight - be ready for anything, good or bad", to hint that you-as-DM are aware something's in the wind.

You're lucky in that your player at least warned you what was coming.

My eyebrows raise slightly on reading there's a Paladin in the group who has no issues with what the Necro has been doing...assuming the Paladin has knowledge of such and assuming the Pally is the stereotypical LG type, neither of which assumptions may be correct.

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

When you say that Derek will be "broadsided" by this, do I take that to mean there has been no warning? No little "Harry walks over to Derek and tries to get him to stop." or "Harry sits Derek down for a long talk about how what he's doing with his magic is wrong?" or anything along those lines to give Derek some kind of indication that Harry is having problems with the things Derek is doing?

Does Harry understand what he is doing? Does he realize that the party Paladin may very well have to arrest him and have him imprisoned for murder if he finds out? Potentially killing him? Harry is arguably not trying to reform if his answer to Derek is murder in the night. If his PC is truly trying to reform, the most reasonable answer would be to report Derek to the authorities (other than the Paladin presumably) if of course anything Derek has done is illegal at all. If nothing Derek has done is illegal then Harry is simply a murderer. Every murderer attempts to justify their actions somehow.

I'd question Harry if his actions are really in character, if his motivations are really in line with his personality. Has Harry ever expressed a dislike for necromancy before? A love of small animals? Concern for the weak-minded who might not understand what they're getting into? If Harry is trying to reform, why isn't he encouraging Derek to reform?

Personally, I'd sit Harry down and ask him what's going on. This doesn't sound like in-character behaviour.

 

[Lanefan]

You could tell the Harry player he has to save it for the very end of the campaign, when there's no more gameplay left to pursue OTHERWISE the player of the Derek PC has to be informed and agree to such a change, especially since they have to prepare a backup character IF they agree to go along with this twist.

We're not told the party's level, but as it's the end of R-of-T it must be getting up there - which means it's very to extremely likely they have revival magic available on a relative whim. Though Derek might well be killed early on, there's nothing at all saying he's going to stay dead for very long at all.

Given what info we have*, I can very easily see how a scenario like the following would play out:

- Harry kills Derek, or tries to (if he tries and fails he's really screwed!)
- Party soon learn who the killer was via one or more of: directly witnessing the action; Harry confessing (or boasting); or detective work
- Party, led by the Paladin, turn on Harry and either run him out, kill him, or bring him to justice (if they don't they become complicit in the killing, which isn't very Paladinic)
- Derek is revived in one of several ways: by the party, by order of a court of law or equivalent, by his guild, or by whoever

* - the key info we're not given is how well each of Derek and Harry are liked by the rest of the party, should the party end up having to choose one and let the other go.

The upshot: it's more Harry's player than Derek's who needs to have a replacement character handy.

Lanefan

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

I raised my eyebrows on the paladin as well. Pathfinder? I know my group would have the paladin using Smite Evil on the necromancer daily just to test his alignment.

I would not warn the necromancer player, but only because I would view it as my duty as a neutral party to keep out of the conflict beyond moderating it to keep it entirely in-character.

I would also go with Lanefan's idea about a storm warning, and have a storm actually show up. Mostly to set a thematic mood for the fight. After all, just because it's between two PCs doesn't mean you can't use storytelling tropes to make the fight more entertaining. Include lots of lightning flashes and thunder in the distance, and the final blow illuminated by lightning.

 

[Shiroiken]

There are two schools of thought: DM as neutral arbiter, and DM as story enforcer. You should normally have this stuff figured out well in advance (session 0), and I'm surprised it's taken this long for an issue to come up. I'd suggest you consider the following views, and see which one is closest to the way you and your group view the game. Obviously these are the extreme ends, with most sitting somewhere in the middle.

DM as neutral arbiter. The DM provides plot hooks and controls NPCs/monsters, nothing more. The players are free to act as they see fit, including against one another. The DM is not to interfere, serving only as an impartial judge to narrate the outcome of the actions and dice rolls of the involved players. DMs who do this are generally more old-school, often running sandbox type games that are player driven.

DM as story enforcer. The DM has a plot, and shall interfere with player activity that strays from said plot. The players must abide by table rules set by the DM (usually negotiated with the group during session 0), including how much PvP behavior is acceptable (it must be plot related). The DM may intercede, including forcing player actions if needed, to keep the game on track. DMs who do this normally are running epic stories, such as Adventure Paths, where the players need to remain focused on the story.

Since you are running RoT, I'm guessing your game is probably closer to the second. No matter which way you go, you should explain to Harry how you plan to handle it, so that he can be ready. I would suggest you allow everything to go exactly as Harry desires (DM as arbiter) until he goes to actually murder Derek. Pause the game at that point, and speak with the group as a whole. Ask them if they feel that the players should have complete agency, or if the focus should remain on the plot. If the majority of the group (other than Harry and Derek) agree, and it's not a deal-breaker for anyone, go with the majority. If it's a deal-breaker, then everyone is going to have to compromise somewhere.

 

[thorgrit]

Short advice: don't pvp

Longer advice: Tell Derek, or better yet the whole group, about Harry's desired character arc. Let them come up with ways to highlight the conflict, let it come to a head, and resolve it in mutually agreed upon ways. You should only let one PC ambush another with intent to kill without informing the victim's player if you're the kind of DM that feels it would be fair to have a very strong NPC do the same, and the group has reason to expect that kind of playstyle.

 

[77IM]

I wouldn't allow this at all. My rule, as DM, is: one PC can't screw with another PC without the victim's player's consent.

I don't care if it's in-character for Harry's PC to kill Derek's. Whether the assassination is successful or not, Derek's player might get really pissed off about it. And this would be entirely justified, even in a group of very mature role-players, because it takes control of Derek's PC's fate away from Derek. You're basically letting Harry decide the ending of the necromancer's story instead of Derek, and that's not at all cool. I could imagine that from Derek's point of view, getting killed in your sleep by the party rogue has all the fun and excitement of "rocks fall, you die."

Now if you run this idea past Derek maybe he'd be all into it. COOL TWIST: Derek's necromancer comes back from the dead as a revenant! But instead of being out for revenge, he's out to prove to Harry that necromancy can be used for good as well as evil! But maybe Derek things this is all a dumb idea and he just wants to play his character and not need to look over his shoulder at his own party.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

OK, so not having all the history or information, my main question is why is the rogue suddenly deciding now that they are going to play judge, jury, and executioner? If he is trying to reform his ways, how does taking a life impact that? The rogue has up until now been willing to accept help from the necromancer and has been assisted by the necromancer's minions and powers. So even if the rogue believes this power is potentially bad or corrupting, what responsibility does he take for complacency? Also, if they have been traveling together and battling on the same side, there is an assumption that they have saved each other's lives from time to time. Outside of complete sociopaths, it should not be a decision made lightly or easily to kill a brother-in-arms.

Also, how does Harry believe the others are going to respond? These are people that have a bond forged in the fires of battle. Even if Derek has the potential to fall as the first necromancer character did, how is the party going to look at Harry? Are they going to see someone that stopped a future Hitler before he had a chance to do real damage? Or as someone that just killed a friend in his sleep, and may decide to do the same to the others when Harry feels justified?

While I agree with [MENTION=6775477]Shiroiken[/MENTION] that a DM should remain neutral and move the story along for everyone's enjoyment, it is also the DM's job to help flesh out the player characters. I would be having this conversation with the player and asking these questions, and pointing out the inconsistencies such as how he justified traveling and fighting with the necromancer for so long and now all of a sudden feels this person should die. I would ask the player to develop a sense of how these feelings and decisions came to be, while pointing out the potential consequences of his actions. Because not only might the group turn on Harry for killing Derek, but if Derek's character has done nothing to break the law then Harry is going to be a murderer, plain and simple. No matter how badly he may have been trying to reform in the past, he has just elevated and escalated his threat level to society and become a vigilante to be hunted by the law. And while I am not familiar with the module, but if the group has any fame or notoriety for being heroes and stopping some great evil, then this is going to insure that Harry would be dragged through the mud as a backstabbing turncoat that senselessly killed a comrade. At best he will live out his days as an outcast that is not trusted and marked as scum, and at worst hunted to be jailed or executed for his crimes. I would make sure that Harry understands these potential consequences and has more reason for acting than what he has thus far provided.

You don't need to jump in and stop the player from making the choice. But at least make sure the player knows why they are making this choice, understands how it fits into the character they have represented in the game, and has 100% understanding of the potential consequences.