All in good fun or too offensive

[reveal]

I see where reveal is getting at and I instructed to all players (before and after the new player) that somehow we'll all have to get along. Though everyone is great friends outside of character., in game, as one of the players just pointed out to me, is full of players whom have some kind of mistrust for one another in some way (last game one of the players torched a players NPC daughter to kill an oncoming enemy), and normally I don't mind it because it never gets out of hand. The priestess though has been on the extreme end of some of the conflicts though. She plays her character very "holier than thou" but at times too holier than thou. Again last game she torched the one person in the group whom trusted her daughter (even though her reasoning was somehwat ok -the monster was attached to the girl and was trying to make the girl kill herself- ). I can't think of one person in the party character wise whom likes her. Even the magical weapon she's bonded with finds her annoying. But I can't tell a player how to play their character.

OR should I????

Don't do anything unless her behavior affects the other player's fun.

 

[Chimera]

No one has expressed that they were offended and I have been in communication with both players and neither has brought it up (I did not talk to them about it either). This is me wondering if this is something festering or just "as said" two good role players playing their characters.

I have talked to the new character that she needs to make sure her character has reasons to be with the group.

Do either of them read this board?

You might want to talk to them just to make sure that something isn't festering here. Then perhaps a "general" (ie, not aimed at anyone in particular) mention that you hope that all the characters can get along and be part of the same party.

Good that you talked to the new player, because most of the onus is on her to fit into the established group. But the existing players need to make her welcome too.

 

[Elf Witch]

If people aren't having fun, than there's a problem. If metagaming is needed, then so be it. I would hate to see a group of players at each others throat constantly simply because "that's what my character would do." Where's the fun in that?

But so far the DM has not said that there is a lack of fun. It only becomes a lack of fun if it gets out of control. We had a group of PC forced togethersome of them didn't get along and had these snide comments and things like that. But we never attacked each other or let it get in the way of the group.

It depends on the players involved and their ability not to take it to far or take it to personally.

And you don't have to make a character that does not fit into the group. But I will stand by my earlier statement and say that characters don't always have to get along.

 

[reveal]

And you don't have to make a character that does not fit into the group. But I will stand by my earlier statement and say that characters don't always have to get along.

I'm not either. And, no, the DM didn't say that no one was having fun. What I was saying is that if it does get to the point that people aren't having fun, metagaming does become an option.

For example, in my campaign, we started out with a situation where 2 characters were arguing constantly. It got to the point where it became a problem. We metagamed and, it turned out, it was simply because one player forgot that his character had never apologized for his actions towards the other player. That's why the other player was upset. Once the offending player realized he hadn't apologized, we metagamed to say his character did and it was over.

In that situation, player knowledge was the problem and it took metagaming to settle it.

 

[Pebele]

I see where reveal is getting at and I instructed to all players (before and after the new player) that somehow we'll all have to get along. Though everyone is great friends outside of character., in game, as one of the players just pointed out to me, is full of players whom have some kind of mistrust for one another in some way (last game one of the players torched a players NPC daughter to kill an oncoming enemy), and normally I don't mind it because it never gets out of hand. The priestess though has been on the extreme end of some of the conflicts though. She plays her character very "holier than thou" but at times too holier than thou. Again last game she torched the one person in the group whom trusted her daughter (even though her reasoning was somehwat ok -the monster was attached to the girl and was trying to make the girl kill herself- ). I can't think of one person in the party character wise whom likes her. Even the magical weapon she's bonded with finds her annoying. But I can't tell a player how to play their character.

OR should I????

frankly, I wouldn't allow this sort of behavior to continue in my campaign.

why do the other characters continue to work with her? from a character perspective, I can't think of a single reason why a character would want to continue traveling with the type of person you are describing.

I'm all for roleplaying your character and I'm all for minor conflict within the group, but this seems to be taking it too far.

however, I suppose if the rest of the players don't have an issue with it, there's not much you can do. but I would honestly talk with them about it and talk with this player about their character.

the moment that one player's actions take fun away from the rest of the group is where that one player needs to be dealt with.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm not either. And, no, the DM didn't say that no one was having fun. What I was saying is that if it does get to the point that people aren't having fun, metagaming does become an option.

For example, in my campaign, we started out with a situation where 2 characters were arguing constantly. It got to the point where it became a problem. We metagamed and, it turned out, it was simply because one player forgot that his character had never apologized for his actions towards the other player. That's why the other player was upset. Once the offending player realized he hadn't apologized, we metagamed to say his character did and it was over.

In that situation, player knowledge was the problem and it took metagaming to settle it.

The situation you described could have also been as easily solved in character as well instead of metagaming. The character could have confronted them and said hey what is up with you guys why the fighting? And it could have come out in character.

I am a big believer in handling character problems in game in character and player problems outside of the game.

 

[reveal]

The situation you described could have also been as easily solved in character as well instead of metagaming. The character could have confronted them and said hey what is up with you guys why the fighting? And it could have come out in character.

I am a big believer in handling character problems in game in character and player problems outside of the game.

But the problem was that the player thought they had apologized even though the character hadn't. If we had let it go on, it never would have been resolved because the character would have kept thinking they had apologized, solving nothing.

I prefer characters to solve their problems in character, as well. But sometimes it's not going to happen that way.

 

[Darkness]

But the problem was that the player thought they had apologized even though the character hadn't. If we had let it go on, it never would have been resolved because the character would have kept thinking they had apologized, solving nothing.

I don't quite follow. Was the offended character too proud to point out what his beef was or something?

 

[Drowbane]

THe party nearly murders the new character and they expect her to play nice? Fools! They should be happy she doesn't Tiger-out and rip them all to small pieces...

 

[reveal]

I don't quite follow. Was the offended character too proud to point out what his beef was or something?

No the offended character (C1) kept telling the other character (C2) that she was mad because he never apologized. C2 kept saying he did apologize. After 6 sessions, the whole group spoke to C2 and told him he had never apologized, which he hadn't. The player honestly thought he had and said he would have apologized if he had known he hadn't. We tried to let it play out in character but it wasn't working.