Party Conflicts

[JoeGKushner]

So does any other DM hate it when players make characters they know can't travel with the party? Our group has a paladin and a necromancer. For a while one was out of play while the other one was in and now both are in so of course the paladin doesn't want to travel with the necromancer who he feels is evil, splitting the party up in some aspects.

Happens every time it seems. Start the game off with some clear ideas of what you'll allow, one person gives you some good ideas for why his character could be a little different or outside of the typical and then everyone jumps onboard. Sure, you thought you were going to run a merc campaign but now you're up to you're elbows in evil characters with a few exceptions who don't want the evil ones around...

 

[jRocket]

The simple solution to this problem is to not allow players to have evil characters in your campaign.

 

[Arnwyn]

*shrug* I've always set limits beforehand. One main rule I have, for example, is that half the party (3 of the 6 characters) *must* have a good alignment. I have no intention of DMing a campaign of evil characters - if the players want to play in that type of campaign, they can find another DM.

The second thing I do is ask each new character that enters "why he/she thinks that this character will reasonably fit into the party" The player has to justify his/her decision to me.

 

[tennyson]

Or at least restrict alignments to one end of the spectrum or the other. Granted, an entire evil party will have different reasons for banding together, most likely selfish, but it can still work. A paladin and a necromancer....I just don't see that ever being feasible, especially if they are the sterotypes.

 

[Bastoche]

What about not allowing good characters ?

It's much more logical to not allow incompatible characters.

We begun a campaign last week a good oriented one. It's been a long time since I played a good aligned character so I ended up with a LG wizard.

The clerics is mischevious going the rogue/cleric route. Begun as CG, changed to CN and seems to have CE tendecies... We'll see how it goes. But I think along the way, he'll return to the good side. Or at least stay neutral.

When alignement is the only thing implied, there's no problem, you can always change alignment without too much conscequences. But a paladin vs a necromancer, there's no way the hell it's gonna work. Or paladin with an assassin for example. A wise and witty evil wizard of any kind could make it with a paladin without being pointed out immediatly, but playing with the dead is a big giveaway.

 

[Delemental]

Another way to do it is to tell all your players in advance of character creation that you expect them to make characters that will want to work with a group. Often you'll get players who have really cool character concepts, but fail to consider that they'll have to get along with others and cooperate. I think this happens because a majority of fictional characters out there in books, movies, comics, TV, etc are the "Lone Wolf" type.

Don't go to any extraordinary lengths to force these people to stay together. If the paladin leaves, he leaves. If the necromancer leaves, he leaves. If you continue to have problems like this, then take the problem players aside and talk to them.

It also sometimes helps to have the players discuss what kind of characters they want to play before they create them. This way you can head off potential problems. When one player wants to play a paladin, and another wants to play a necromancer, you can point out the conflict and make the players either come up with a reasonable way for them to get along, or change their concepts.

 

[haiiro]

Another way to do it is to tell all your players in advance of character creation that you expect them to make characters that will want to work with a group.

I'll second this approach. It doesn't prevent players from creating pesky PCs, but they'll generally be pesky in a toned-down sort of way. I do this as a DM, and I certainly don't mind it as a player. Few things strain my suspension of disbelief more than knowing that a party is only together because the players want to be together.

 

[Numion]

What irritates me is the fact that the adventuring group will accept any kind of character into it, just because, hey, it's a PC. I understand that it's because it's a game and people should be allowed to play what they want..

In the campaign I'm playing in, I'm the longest running character in it, and somewhat of a leader. (The grand town house is mine, as is the highest exp level ) Thus each time a new character wants to join us, I detect evil on him. If she/he's acting wierd, it's time for Discern Lies. No backstabbers in the group. This makes perfect sense. You've chosen the most dangerous profession there is: adventurer. You've seen your friends and companions fall to vile magic, blades and claws. Last thing you want to have is a traitor (or other unreliable person) in your group.

My 2 cents.

 

[Nightfall]

Just a word of advice Joe. I too have a paladin and a necromancer. But at least they aren't going to kill each other. (Both are LG. ) However I might yet die with the Brown Gorger Slitheren for my PC...

 

[Sanackranib]

party conflict

the group I am in that is just starting (2nd group) had the guidelines of no evil, but since we were going to be in a stealth critical campaign (starting at level 8) the DM suggested that I help the other players with some creation suggestions. we all know what eachother is playing and this is SO not going to be a problem.

I have found that if the pc's know what eacher is planing during character generation then a lot of incompatible types are weeded out before the game ever starts as most of us have several "types or conceps" we would like to play.