Party Conflict

[Evilhalfling]

In my tabletop game there are two characters who are directly opposed. They are both from a tribe of humans enslaved by a dragon. The dragon sent them on a mission and told them to return within one year, or thier families would suffer. One PC wants to return and kill the dragon. The other is loyal to her upbriging and the dragon.

I don't see this ending well, so I am considering making it go bad faster. I would talk to the players and see if they were willing to drive the characters into eventually killing each other.
The rest of the party is on the fence about dragons and could be swayed either way.
Options:
1. players compeate for the rest of the groups opinion.
2. one player decides to become the villian and that PC leaves the party before or after they come to blows.
3. Someone has a change of heart.
4. One plays a villian and betrays the others at the end.

has anyone tried to foster this level of conflict?
any advice?
btw the two players are engaged, and I think they are mature enough to pull it off, but I don't want to hurt thier relationship with the game.

 

[diaglo]

this could end the campaign at any time. unless you have a good backup plan.

cause you are building both PCs and sounds like the party tie-in on the conflict.

esp when 1 of them dies.

make sure you give the other PCs something to do or suggest when the final conflict between the two is resolved.

 

[Crothian]

Pick one of them to be right, and show that they are in the campaign through the actions of the Dragon.

 

[BlackMoria]

I would talk with the two players in question and mediate how they want to resolve the conflict.

Unresolved, this can have potentially big ramifications for the party - more so once party members start taking sides in the kill the dragon - don't kill the dragon debate. Lack of consensus will hurt the party in the long run if it is allowed to fester.

You, as DM, should not impose a solution - principally because if you get it wrong, you will have one upset player on your hands. The players must come to their own solution to the issue. Once they have a solution, you as DM can resolve the story to make the solution happen as the players have agreed.

 

[Celebrim]

So, what's the problem?

Lots of DM's would give thier favorite D20 to have that sort of party tension and characterization. Honor, betrayal, emotional anguish, triumph, despair - these are meat and drink to a DM, and you don't even have to do all the work yourself in this case. Go with it as long as possible.

If things eventually fall apart IC, the main consideration is that everyone still get a chance to play.

To that end...

1) Start setting aside or preparing some NPC's to convert over to PC's if the party splits or one party member kills the other. In that way, you can readily fill the gap in the party. You don't need to stat the character out, just have the character available as an ally to one side or the other.
2) In some campaigns, single parties can end up splitting into several different parties. I've seen campaigns where the original PC's and thier henchmen and associates, each ended up spawning thier own campaign as the character motivations led players in different directions. As long as you have mature players, you can have parties in active opposition to each other. I've even seen a campaign where one party was actively hunting down and trying to kill the other party - even though both parties were run by the same players. I think it actually can make for a really exciting climax to a story arc to have the PC's suddenly face themselves unexpectedly.

 

[darkelfo]

Lots of DM's would give thier favorite D20 to have that sort of party tension and characterization. Honor, betrayal, emotional anguish, triumph, despair - these are meat and drink to a DM, and you don't even have to do all the work yourself in this case. Go with it as long as possible.

I agree. Actual roleplaying had been somwhat lackluster in my game until a conflict developed between two party members. That sparked an hour and a half of pure roleplaying (and subsequent interludes) between the players alone. It was freaking awesome.

However, this is purely a roleplaying thing. The PCs are at odds, the two players are great friends.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Inter party conflict is playing with matches and gasoline. It can mean the end of campaigns and create injured feelings amongst players that no logic can repair.

I don't see D&D as a competitive game but a cooperative one. And from that, all else flows.

Yeah yeah. Players great friends; this is all about their characters; yadda yadda yadda.

Let's assume that's true. I still imagine we could cobble together a rather epic thread on ENWorld about DMs and players reflecting on back-in-the-day inter-party conflicts that, however well intended, got out of hand, wrecked campaigns and even lead to gaming circles breaking up.

My general advice is to avoid it like the plague. I play the bad guys, the players play the good guys and all is well.

 

[toberane]

If you can encourage the player who will betray the others so that his betrayal will happen during the final conflict, it can work out well.

We played an Evils campaign once where everone was of evil alignment--except my character (Chaotic Neutral). I was looking for a way to avenge the death of my parents and possibly my sister who had been kidnapped when we were young. As the campaign went along, I found my sister who had turned into a good aligned cleric. Through her influence, I started becoming more good, and betrayed the evil party right at the m ost crucial moment of our ultimate battle. We (The good guys) won. It was great, and everyone had a good time, even the other players who lost the battle.

Of course, they are now out to get my character who is hiding out with good-aligned allies on the elemental plane of Air right now, but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.