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

[Guest 6801328]

So, if this is an attempt to let in-game mechanics resolve this issue, it doesn't succeed, it just hands the power to the other side of the player-v-player disagreement.

It's possible you misunderstood the principle. When player A attacks player B, player B decides the outcome of only that attack, not the whole combat. If B retaliates against A, A gets to decide how that attack turns out. And so on. So it doesn't hand "power" to anybody, except in the sense that everybody gets to decide what happens to their own character.

The rest of your post had merit; I just wanted to to clarify that one point.

 

[iserith]

i have seen that guideline referenced quite a bit but to me, it seems to not do much more than shift the angle of attack or place of power.

ONE - At its core this is a player problem. there is a mismatch between the player's expectations as to what should and should not be going on.

A player deciding to have his or her character attack or hinder another player's character is not always indicative of a "player problem." It's not my general preference that players seek conflict within the group given the near infinite opportunity for conflict with villains and monsters outside the group, but if the players both think that it will contribute to achieving the goals of play (everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story while playing), then there's no problem. The table rule stated by me and endorsed by [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] leaves the door open for that possibility while shutting down any unilateral PvP action. And, of course, as with any table rule, it needs to be discussed with the players prior to the game per the DMG (page 235) so there are no surprises.

 

[Blue]

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'm not sure I agree with a single thing you said here. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying that it is the exact opposite of what I personally would expect at a table I am playing or running -- but different tables have different expectations and social contracts so it might be right for yours.

First, the highest priority duty as a DM is to run a fun game. Fun absolutely means different things to different tables, but if Derek is going to be "broadsided by this, it doesn't sound like PvP is part of that table's fun. So this sounds like directly failing in the DM's most important duty.

Second, in-character is very important - but again, does that override to the point of killing somone else's character? You want to do something that screws the party but stays in character - go for it, failure and drama are essential in good stories and you can build from there. You want to martyr/retire/kill-off your own character? That's fine, it's your call. But STOPPING someone elses' story is the opposite of this.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

What I am about to say falls in line with the " Derek may pick up on the attempt" line of thinking. I didn't see anywhere that rogue's player said that the rogue went out of his way to hide his displeasure with the necromancer. Since that seems to be the case, I think that it would be very fair to allow the necromancer to realize that the rogue is seriously upset with him. Maybe not realize there is a full on murder plot, that is really up to you to decide depending on a variety of things. But since wanting to murder an ally means there is a serious change in one's attitude towards that ally, and there was no mention of trying to hide this change in attitude, then I think it would be fair for anyone in the group to have a fairly good chance of noticing this.

 

[Blue]

You mention your role as neutral arbiter. I think that a fair neutral arbiter would be allowing insight checks by Derek's necromancer (and other party members who would intervene) for the weeks or months this has been growing.

Now, I'm not saying a necromancer is trained in insight nor has a high wisdom, but there still a chance of noticing especially if they are spending all there time with this person, in a lot of stressful situations. 5 chances to roll a 16+ (picking random DCs and how long) is still over a 75% chance to notice.

If it's not possible to retcon back several weeks, I'd discuss with Harry that it should have been, and unless this is a single immediate straw that broke the camel's back you would like to push this off for weeks in game to allow this.

IF that is not something that Harry is willing to do, then you need to step in to actively do something to tilt this from being hard in Harry's rogue's direction because of Harry's late telling you about this back to the realm of neutral.

Really, if you see your role as neutral arbiter, you need to act since right now it seems you are strongly favoring one player by disallowing the all of the other characters the mechanical chances they would have to have noticed this growing animosity.

And really, that can be great drama. The paladin having a conversation with the rogue about it during watch one night could be great fun to RP.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Hi, I sympathize with that temptation. I recommend not yielding to it. Dice have an important role to play to support your preferred style of GMing, which has many virtues. But dice fail when dealing with issues of this kind. Sadly, this style of GMing also fails, because it depends upon a social contract that is about to be violated. For me, the worst part of allowing this kind of violation is that the GM's instincts and principles get turned upon themselves, with the GM becoming complicit and self-betraying. I think it's why you're here. You run your game in a way that is usually neutral and challenging and fair, in a way that usually empowers players to make choices that are fun all around. Following that path without adjustment is about to feel unfair, not neutral, not fun. More than the necromancer's player, the person about to be slimed is you. Repairing the breach involves different tools. Dice can be great for gaming but never for metagaming. It's down to you. Anyway, Ken

It isn't metagaming though. The rogue would have had to make hundreds of deception checks vs the necromancer's insight to hide his intent and disgust at the necromancer. This feels like some BS the rogue player pulled out of his ass and is retconning in to add stupid drama to what should be a cooperative game.

 

[Lanefan]

It boils down to the fact that, unless they go into a game understanding that PvP can be a thing and they're okay with that, PvP should be off the table for players.

I take the opposite approach, where anything goes unless there's a specific pre-determined understanding that it won't.

With that in mind you could offer Harry the option that he could go ahead with this plan but, as an antagonist to another PC, his PC becomes an NPC from that point on.

I'd hope that all those who support the idea of PC autonomy jump all over this one, as not only are you suggesting the DM determines what the character does, you're suggesting giving the DM the character completely.

Agreed, furthermore I would remind Harry that at a bare minimum there is a VERY good chance that the rest of the party will kick him out

Yes.

and his character will become an NPC.

No. Harry still belongs to his player. The only difference is that Harry is now operating solo (or builds another party around himself) and has made himself a bunch of rather powerful enemies.

I do not care how well you thought out your excuse to murder a fellow party member you are gone. No sane party member is going to continue to travel with a wannabe Judge Dredd who just also happens to be the class that specializes in dealing massive damage to unaware targets.

A sane party member might well want to continue travelling with wannabee Judge, under the flag of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Also, it's easier to fight fire with fire and take out ol' Judgey if you know where he is.

Lan-"or on learning or the murder the party acting as judge jury and executioner could put Harry to a drumhead trial on the spot, find him guilty, and hang him"-efan

 

[billd91]

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.

Really? If I were running a PF game that had a paladin pulling that crap daily, he wouldn't be a paladin for very long. Provoking conflict with an ally and attempting to harm him on a regular basis - not exactly the epitome of good and honorable behavior.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yes. No. Harry still belongs to his player. The only difference is that Harry is now operating solo (or builds another party around himself) and has made himself a bunch of rather powerful enemies.

Yeah, because DM's love splitting the party so much... I mean, who doesn't want to run two *separate* campaigns just to coddle a drama queen player?

Sorry, when you aren't fit to be in the party, you don't get to demand your own private campaign.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Really? If I were running a PF game that had a paladin pulling that crap daily, he wouldn't be a paladin for very long. Provoking conflict with an ally and attempting to harm him on a regular basis - not exactly the epitome of good and honorable behavior.

Animating the dead is inherently evil in Pathfinder. I need to double check, but I think there's at least one Paladin code where smiting someone animating the dead is part of the code. Some of the other good gods might also qualify for allowing it; one faction of Sarenae's religion definitely would. And it's definitely blasphemy to more than a few, if I remember the lore correctly.

So, basically, you have to understand the paladin would be watching someone repeatedly do an act they know to not only be inherently evil, but also blasphemous to many good gods. It's a different situation from 5E.