Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8460972" data-attributes="member: 29398">I don't mind this at all.  They can sort it out in-character and if it comes to a fight or one (or both) leaving the party, so be it.  Or maybe they'll find a reason to get along or at least bury the hatchet for a while.But it stays in character.Once I set the guidelines around what species are playable, my attitude falls well toward the "anything goes" camp both as DM and player.I don't have too much problem with a DM telling me what I can play - e.g. if there's no Dwarves in the setting then fine, I can't play a Dwarf - but I'll push back very hard if the DM veers into telling me how to play whatever I end up with. It's only natural that some characters aren't going to get along, or aren't going to be the white-hat heroes people might expect, or have their own agendae within the setting; so let's play that out if-when it arises rather than find contrivances to sweep it under the rug.What usually happens IME is that after a few early in-character fights and arguments a tone gets set by the winning side, after which new characters are (in the fiction) often - but not always! - somewhat "vetted" as to whether they'll suit that tone before they're taken in.  For example, if a stereotypical D&D party starts out with a Paladin and an Assassin in it, it's inevitable that after a very short time only one of those is going to be around; and which one remains in the group will set the tone for that group going forward.  Often the choice isn't made by the actual opposed characters at all but by the rest of the party deciding which one they'd rather keep. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification