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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8095258" data-attributes="member: 16814">Fundamentally, this is a design problem -- if the choice is having wasted your time or make an immoral deal, then animosity is almost baked in.  This could have been avoided by recognizing the dead end and not presenting such a bad choice.  Bad and hard choices are great, but only if they come up as part of the PC failing, not if the prep drives to it.  But, as you note, this is water under the bridge -- at best a lesson for the future.A second lesson for the future is to plan ahead and have a clear and clean resolution method for inter-party conflict.  My preference, in D&D, is to say that you can do PvP all you want, but the target of your action gets the authority to narrate how it turns out.  If you try to kill the PC of another player, for instance, that player gets to say what happens in that attempt.  The second player can't narrate a bad outcome for the first player, because that just starts looping, but can narrate a failure or other happening.  This lets players roleplay out inter-party conflicts without ending up in painful 'you killed my character/stole my gear' moments.  But, again, advice too late for you situation.Being you are where you are, it's a tough spot.  There's zero reason to continue on a path that results in real world animosities.  Best thing to do is step out of the game, talk frankly on what the players want out of this, and then retcon/move forward in a way that achieves that, at least partially.  As it is, you've still got the PCs in a place where they make the deal or they're out their time and effort.  Neither of these is attractive to players, who don't like being told they've wasted their time nor do they like being forced to make an immoral deal.  So, let's flip these.  Without a "retcon", I'd talk with your players and then look at the material and see if there's a way to have the PC that's agreed to the deal have gained some understanding of the workings of the power and/or the deal that they can direct the other players to a way around it -- where they get the thing they need but are able to swindle it from the dark power.  This leaves the rest of the PCs having achieved their goal, but the agreeing PC stuck in a bad deal.  So, some way to mitigate the deal, at least temporarily, is needed.  I'd make it so it costs the agreeing PC something, like a daily spell slot or other lose of inherent resource, to continue to resist the pull of the dark power.  If you like, make it so other PCs can voluntarily perform the sacrifice in the place of the PC, so that the load can be 'shared.'  For extra evil, have that resource be available to the PC at any time -- if they only do the power's bidding.  That way it remains a temptation, especially in challenging moments, to accept the sacrificed power in exchange for further damnation.A second option without a 'retcon' would be to keep the status quo if the players can agree to find a way to continue.  Maybe remind them that good people often make bad mistakes, and friends and allies can be forgiving -- it's not always hate the bad choice and kill it.  Then, if no one else agrees to the deal, have that come up pretty soon afterwards with a reward for following the moral course, despite it appearing there was no reward for it.  This, of course, would not be offered to the agreeing PC.I'd also give the party the option to do a 'retcon'.  Explain that you didn't foresee how the situation was going to play out, so part of the mess is yours.  Point out this is a game you play with friends (or friendly people) and that acrimony isn't the goal.  With that said, open the table for the players to suggest ways that it could be reworked or redone that meets the group's goals.  Be the moderator, but don't be the leader.  Suggest, but don't tell.  If you go this route, it's to get the players onboard with helping to fix the problem and, to do that, you need to not be the GM but another player, else it'll turn into you telling them what's going to happen, which may not fix or help the situation.  Be open to changing the story to find an agreeable solution.  Regardless of which option you go with (these or something else), take the opportunity to discuss with the table how PvP stuff works at your table and lay out any changes of procedure clearly so everyone's on board the next time.  This is important.The last time this happened at my table it was due to having a new player to whom I didn't clarify what the rest of us already had agreed to on PvP.  I didn't have any formal resolution system for PvP in place at the time, it was just agreed and largely unspoken table understanding.  So, when the player had their PC cast suggestion on another PC to win a discussion on what to do, there was shock at the table.  I ended the session, and we discussed it.  Unfortunately, the player could not understand why what they did was something that wasn't okay with the rest of us, and, despite repeated efforts to get him to understand that we could move past this incident but it wouldn't be acceptable in the future he because increasingly upset that such restrictions were going to be placed upon him.  Well, that made him a poor fit for the table, so we let him find a table better suited to his playgoals and parted ways.  I certainly hope this situation goes better for you, but I definitely learned a lesson that these things need to be part of session zero and have clear procedures for resolving.</blockquote>

Verification