Party Conflicts and Different Moral Agendas

[Maldur]

Reading this again after a while, I can only say that it seemed inevitable that the conflict arose, when there are completely opposed characters in the party. Esp considering the zeal of the valloreans, and as a reaction the zeal of others.

The one problem I have with the examples given is the intra-party spells. Sleep, silence and hold spells sound like ... assault. And I as a DM would not tolerate intra party fights.

Two questions:

What is the view of using spells on each other by the dictations of Vallenar ? or the elven god(dess)?

More general question: When is infighting a personality conflict/discussion, and when does the line of combat start?

 

[mmadsen]

There are three women and two men, plus myself as the Game Master.

And all the ruthless characters are played by the men (including you), right?

 

[LairdRuari]

Greetings Maldur!

Shark allows intra-party spells and assaults in extreme cases. In the situations I mentioned, Zaratheena was so bent upon doing her own thing that it threatened the party's safety. The first time it was used was shortly after Axel had aquired the Hold person ability from Vallenar (leveled up). We were underground in a ziggeraut exploring it's chambers and had already encountered several nasty battles with the evil clergy that inhabited it. We came upon a vast chamber and were alerted to the sounds of battle and cries for help. What we found were two high-level elven clerics who were quickly losing a battle to a high-level brute who was a fighter-cleric. We were all 3rd level at the time and pretty beat up from a battle in a previous chamber. Zaratheena was going to attack the brute over the elves simply because they were elves and therefore were somehow less of a threat. Axel on the otherhand had detected evil in both of the elves and was about to add the coup-de-grat to the fallen one upon the steps. Zaratheena, as usual, wanted to argue the point and raised her bow against the brute anyway. It was then that Axel neutralized her with a Hold Person spell, and proceeded to interrogate the fallen cleric long enough to learn that he was the High-Priest of the Ziggeraut's order along with his sister who was fighting the brute. The brute was a recently escaped prisoner from the tortures of the ziggeraut's dungeon and was fighting for his life.

Most of the time Axel tries to ignore Zaratheena. The problem is that her player plays Zaratheena as if she were herself. The player has issues with men, authority, and is extremely opinionated.

Over the past fifteen years of playing in Shark's campaigns we have only encountered two intances of players causing disharmony within the group. Zaratheena has been the second, and a beastman named Targanoth was the first. On both occasions their player's took great joy in opposing my PC's. Targanoth happened to cross my Paladin Rory(who's a part of the mountain fortress siege now) one too many times, and endanger the group/get them captured one too many times, so Rory challenged Targanoth to a duel and was victorious. Targanoth was proof to Rory that beastman cannot be turned from their chaotic ways, and must be purged from the lands of Thandor. Targanoth's twin brother was allowed to join only to cross Shark's Golden Dragon NPC and was disemboweled with one swipe of a claw. Zaratheena has been put on notice to tone it down by Shark as she has crossed the line from interesting clash among PC's to dissention and annoyance among the other players. Zaratheena acts toward Axel like the bratty younger sibling that keeps pushing and pushing just to get his goat.

So to recap, Maldur, intra-party spells and assaults are tolerated in extreme cases and only when it is realistic and justified. Infighting or disagreements/discussions happen on a regular basis as a normal part of group dynamics such as the rogue who believes evil prisoners should be executed as opposed to others who would let them go their own way as a sign of mercy.


Ruari

 

[barsoomcore]

And all the ruthless characters are played by the men (including you), right?

You know, comments like this (and the assumptions they seem to carry behind them) are so loaded that they tend to inspire fury rather than debate.

If you were interested in learning about the gender distribution of ruthlessness in SHARK's group, a simple, "Do you find the men more ruthless than the women?" would have sufficed AND not have included any assumptions that people might get cranky about.

It's not that I think it's pointless to ask or talk about such things, it's just that people have a tendency to get pretty worked up about the worldviews implicit in the manner in which your question was asked. Not getting people worked up leads to more interesting discussions, in my experience. Of course you know best what your actual intent was and I may be way off the mark. Apologies if so -- I'm just seeking to head off the sorts of angry posting that gets threads closed.

 

[barsoomcore]

It's fun to see the players sharpen their characters' views and defend them against the views of other players. I think it is an avenue for the players to "get to know" their characters, so to speak.

You got that right. It's in the disagreements that the PC's individual drives and hopes and fears to come light.

Elena is tired of dealing with unsavoury power-hungry sorcerers. She would just go home and forget it all ever happened but she knows that if they don't do something, nobody will and nowhere will be safe. So she's always looking for a way to deny advantage to EVERYONE.

Etienne wants to be a hero. He wants to save the world so he's always looking for a way to put himself in the most advantageous position.

Nevid wants power. He wants to know everything that's going on so that he can pull the right string at the right time and make things fall out as he desires.

Each of them have different goals. Often their goals are parallel. If the Demon Goddess is trying to get her elegant undead hands on a particular artifact so she can wipe out Elena's hometown, there's no debate. They must find that artifact before she does.

Once they've got it, however, the debate begins. Elena wants to destroy it. Etienne wants to use to destroy the Demon Goddess. Nevid wants to figure out how it works. They all have reasons and they all care very deeply about what happens.

What fun!

My players have on rare occasions resorted to assaults on each other. Arrafin was made furious with Isaac once and tried to make him stinky (using ghoul touch). It didn't work out and, well, she was a little embarrassed afterwards.

I would never interfere in such player decisions, however. I do try to structure my game so that players are not mortal enemies.

 

[LairdRuari]

Men are the most ruthless??

Greetings mmadsen,

Your assumption is in error my friend. Our group for one has grown by two...my nephews joined the campaign. My niece's PC happens to be an Amazon-like barbarian who is totally ruthless in her opinion toward the male sex. Shark, his wife Rhiannon, and I play a variety of PC's with different personalities and beliefs.


Laird

 

[mmadsen]

You know, comments like this (and the assumptions they seem to carry behind them) are so loaded that they tend to inspire fury rather than debate....Of course you know best what your actual intent was and I may be way off the mark. Apologies if so -- I'm just seeking to head off the sorts of angry posting that gets threads closed.

You make a legitimate point, barsoomcore -- but I was just taking a playful jab at SHARK. I happen to know SHARK and Mrs. SHARK personally. (I haven't met LairdRuari yet, but I picked up that he was both ruthless and male. )

 

[barsoomcore]

You make a legitimate point, barsoomcore -- but I was just taking a playful jab at SHARK.

Oh, well, in that case, here, have a cattle prod.

 

[Gothmog]

I have always wondered about how characters with the beliefs of a Vallorean paladin reconcile their beliefs with the fact that their own philosophy is flawed. If they believe that all monsters are evil, and are beyond redemption, then why aren't all dwarves LG, or all elves CG? Clearly all dwarves and elves don't follow their racial alignment tendencies, and humans (who are usually neutral by default) are clearly not all neutral. For humans, elves, dwarves, etc- I'd have to say their societies encourage and promote moral and ethical outlooks, but that the individual himself is free to choose his destiny. So what makes them believe that all "evil" creatures are evil, and have no capacity to change from their cultural norms? This topic has come up before on ENWorld, and it always seemed to me that by slaughtering the young of an "evil" race assuming that they are by nature evil, the killer shares exactly the same outlook as those creatures he reviles.

 

[mmadsen]

I have always wondered about how characters with the beliefs of a Vallorean paladin reconcile their beliefs with the fact that their own philosophy is flawed.

Flawed?

If they believe that all monsters are evil, and are beyond redemption, then why aren't all dwarves LG, or all elves CG? Clearly all dwarves and elves don't follow their racial alignment tendencies, and humans (who are usually neutral by default) are clearly not all neutral. For humans, elves, dwarves, etc- I'd have to say their societies encourage and promote moral and ethical outlooks, but that the individual himself is free to choose his destiny. So what makes them believe that all "evil" creatures are evil, and have no capacity to change from their cultural norms?

Presumably the "good" races possess Free Will and the potential for Good, while facing the temtations of Evil. The "evil" races are simply Evil. Does it have to be perfectly symmetrical? If so, certain angelic races can be simply Good.

This topic has come up before on ENWorld, and it always seemed to me that by slaughtering the young of an "evil" race assuming that they are by nature evil, the killer shares exactly the same outlook as those creatures he reviles.

If the "evil" creatures are in fact Evil -- think of them as baby demons -- then killing them is not sharing their outlook at all; it's eradicating Evil. They don't have the potential for good.

If the "evil" creatures aren't quite Evil, but they're largely destructive toward humans -- think of them as plague-bearing rats -- then killing them is ending a threat from something that is far more likely to cause harm than to bring some boon. Even if they may have some small potential for good, killing them is a much smarter bet for improving the world.