PC threatening PC. What to do?

[SnowleopardVK]

(Apologies for the upcoming long post...)

Things turned sour at a session today when two of my four players began fighting over who got to lead the party. Now a little argument can be good for roleplaying and drama sure, but it went from a small argument to out-of-hand incredibly fast. They settled on an agreement of "each one of us is our own leader, neither commands the others" after a bit of argument. That solution seemed fine except that the moment the paladin turned away after making the agreement, the cleric attacked her from behind.

At that moment a critical hit was rolled and confirmed, the paladin was nearly taken down in a single hit, and the cleric stood over her and said "submit to me or I'll kill you". The paladin stated that she was leaving the party the moment the ship they were on gets to the next island. The cleric agreed to that, but told her if (after she leaves) she keeps pursuing the quest that they were on, that she'll kill her.

Now... The whole game I'm running is essentially a playtest of a homebrewed campaign (this was NOT supposed to be a part of it), so I actually don't mind splitting the group. The paladin will leave and the sorcerer will likely choose to join her, whereas the two clerics are likely to stick together. The players seem fine with the idea of disbanding the current party and continuing to playtest separately, but there's still the issue that they have the same goal. The paladin has specific orders and certainly won't back down from them, and the cleric won their "fight", despite it being essentially just an attack from behind, and feels that puts her in charge and gives her the right to kill anyone who interferes with her mission.

Also an issue is that they've all levelled up since that encounter, and Pathfinder's paladin level 4 seems to be a very good level. The cleric got lucky with her strong critical hit, the fact that she could attack from behind, and the fact that I didn't award them experience until the end of the session, but now that they're both 4th level the balance seems completely different. If they fight again the paladin will not be caught off guard, the cleric is unlikely to get as lucky with the dice, and the paladin is likely to kill the cleric (despite the cleric's threats).

I've talked to the players about it. Both feel that what they did (attacking and declaring an intention to leave the party respectively) was completely in character. I agree with that. Both feel that it makes no sense for them to abandon their quest despite the other's intention to kill them. Once again I agree. The issue is that playing their characters as their characters would act is probably going to kill one of them.

And unfortunately kicking out or killing half (or all of) the party is rather unfair to the other two players, who haven't really done much. Their characters aren't even aware yet that the other have had a fight, so it's not really their fault.

So now I'm stuck looking for solutions. Although the players aren't fighting outside of the game, they've both said that they won't accept reforming the group during this campaign, pretty much regardless of the situation. I think my options at this point are to get one of them to change their main quest somehow (the paladin is the more likely one to accept some form of this although I have no idea how to do it at the moment), or to actually have them play separately for a while and then fight to the death. They might actually enjoy that (stressing the "might" part), but I'm hesitant about setting up a PC vs. PC situation in which it's almost certain that one of them will be killed. Somebody loses a character that they spent hours with week after week if I do it that way.

Phew... I got thrown a curveball tonight. I would appreciate ideas of what to do.

 

[Dioltach]

Tricky. If there's no bad blood between the players, you might consider splitting the party and running two games side by side. Each party adds two characters (the players with the paladin and sorcerer make up new PCs to adventure with the clerics, and vice versa) and you alternate sessions between the two groups.

They're both trying to achieve the same goal, but you can create different routes for them and see who comes out on top. Perhaps you could arrange matters so both parties reach the goal at the same time, and then the paladin and sorcerer have to face off against the clerics.

Alternatively, you could turn either of the two PCs involved in the fight into an NPC, who then leads a rival party in pursuit of the same quest.

 

[kitsune9]

Wow, sounds like some ego issues going with a couple of players.

My only suggestion is that I make it clear at the beginning of the campaign they the players should be creating characters who want to adventure with the others. This means playing nice. What was the justification for the cleric to make an opportunistic attack to kill the paladin over an argument on leadership? What was the player's justification? Was the cleric evil? Was the cleric a representative of a god of rage, war, anger, or such that warranted the action?

I have a big issue when players attack other players and then try to justify their actions by stating, "I'm in character" unless that is the purpose of the game set by the DM. If I'm putting together an adventure where the PC's are heroes, need to do good deeds (whether they are altruistic in their motives or not), but then a player almost derails the game by attacking another player's character, it's annoying and boorish behavior. Particularly when they want to justify their actions by saying,"My CN alignment makes me do it." There are lots of other ways to play CN or being chaotic without trying to derail the game, attack other players, and so on. I give out a social contract at the beginning of any campaign and with new players that if they do that, they've played their last session. This is just me, but the idea to play the game together, not justify egos.

Granted, I don't have all the information and maybe I'm reading into this too hard, but I'd come down hard on the cleric player for attacking the paladin regardless of justification. The worse case scenario is the two players would have fought to the death, and someone would have gone home mad, and your campaign is over or you're left with picking up the pieces.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I have a list of 5 things to keep in mind when making new characters. The first three are incredibly relevant to this situation, in my mind.
1) The character should work in a group.
2) The character should be fun for the player and the rest of the party.
3) The character should have a reason to be with the party.

If these are followed, you'll likely not see a split described in your game. I'd say, let them resolve it, in-game, with smiting and smashing of faces, if they're both adamant on their chosen actions. Then, when you have the new player roll up a character, I'd have them keep those 3 things in mind. That'll make a world of difference in the future.

But, if you're playing certain types of games, like being an all-Evil party, then you really shouldn't conform to those rules necessarily (though you certainly could). But, with a paladin in the party, I'd recommend them.

At any rate, I hope some of this helps, but really, do what feels right for you. The big thing to keep in mind, in my opinion, regardless of what action you wind up taking, is having open communication about everything.

As always, play what you like

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Was the cleric evil? Was the cleric a representative of a god of rage, war, anger, or such that warranted the action?

Evil no, but... That pretty much describes her god, yes.

I didn't see this coming for the most part because the cleric's player doesn't like the roleplaying part of RPGs (she has actually told me that in her opinion that everything except combat is a waste of time). She tends to stand silently at the back in social situations (not just with this character, she does it in most games), follows the group wherever they go, and only really takes action whenever fights break out, which is where she shines. I've played alongside her in a few campaigns, and I've DMed a few groups she was in and she has never deviated from her usual nothing-but-combat style before now. I assumed since they both shared a goal of hunting down and killing the BBEG, and since nobody was trying to stop her from fighting anything that she and her character would pose no problem to group cooperation (as is usually the case in games she's in).

Certainly if I have to resort to them creating new characters I'm forbidding infighting...

 

[delericho]

You have two options:

1) Let the situation play out in-game. In which case, you need to act as a strictly impartial adjudicator.

This probably means running a split party, and long-term it probably means the death of one or more PCs. But, there it is.

2) Speak to the two players, make a policy of "no PvP", and tell them to contrive a resolution for their two characters, one that results in them working together long-term, putting their differences aside, without resorting to further violence or a split party.

That might be a bit of a stretch, but it's not outwith the bounds of possibility.

Incidentally:

I've talked to the players about it. Both feel that what they did (attacking and declaring an intention to leave the party respectively) was completely in character. I agree with that. Both feel that it makes no sense for them to abandon their quest despite the other's intention to kill them. Once again I agree. The issue is that playing their characters as their characters would act is probably going to kill one of them.

"I was playing in-character" is no excuse for disruptive behaviour. The player chooses the nature of the character he plays. If that character is disruptive, then it is incumbent on the player to choose a different character.

That solution seemed fine except that the moment the paladin turned away after making the agreement, the cleric attacked her from behind.

At that moment a critical hit was rolled and confirmed, the paladin was nearly taken down in a single hit, and the cleric stood over her and said "submit to me or I'll kill you".

When the Cleric declared her intention to attack, you did of course roll intiative? And got through all the rest of the combat system? (Oh, and also - the cleric negotiated with a weapon in hand?) And, of course, the Cleric was neither Lawful nor Good?

 

[Kzach]

This is the kind of selfishness that I don't tolerate at the table. I don't mind a bit of inter-party conflict and in-character dissension but at the end of the day, that should NEVER trump the fact that everyone is there to PLAY A GAME. The fact that the game is meant to be CO-OPERATIVE means that there comes a point where egos and selfishness needs to be put aside for the benefit of the group.

Then again, this is one of a billion reasons why I don't currently have a group as I simply don't put up with this sort of behaviour and tell players to either shape up or ship out. It's a sad state of affairs that people prefer to maintain their selfish behaviours and choose to ship out instead of taking the mature route and work together to maintain the social group.

 

[Traveller From Afar]

1) Let the situation play out in-game. In which case, you need to act as a strictly impartial adjudicator.

I'd be strongly against that option, a GM needs to step in immediately if things start getting out of hand. I've seen two games completely poisoned by PvP nonsense. Take a firm hand and explain that the players need to work together.

Or my personal favourite, give them bigger things to worry about, like throwing a Ridley Scott Alien or two into the mix. That'll keep them too busy to be measuring genitalia.

 

[delericho]

I'd be strongly against that option, a GM needs to step in immediately if things start getting out of hand. I've seen two games completely poisoned by PvP nonsense. Take a firm hand and explain that the players need to work together.

I've seen it go either way, and when it works, it can work brilliantly.

It really depends on the maturity level of the players - if in doubt, don't allow PvP.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've talked to the players about it. Both feel that what they did (attacking and declaring an intention to leave the party respectively) was completely in character. I agree with that. Both feel that it makes no sense for them to abandon their quest despite the other's intention to kill them. Once again I agree. The issue is that playing their characters as their characters would act is probably going to kill one of them.

I'm going to go against most of the advice on the board. If both players are happy for this to resolved in character, even if that might mean coming to blows and one character leaving or even being killed. Then go for it.

I'd advise you speak as a group about it, since characters leaving or coming to blows will most likely effect their characters. Most characters certainly wouldn't want to stay in a party where "might makes right" and they are happy to kill each other (unless you are playing some sort of Horse Lords campaign).

See the thing is this isn't going resolve nicely no matter what. If the Cleric kills the Paladin or visa versa, the party isn't going to survive most likely. Due to the reasons I've mentioned above. Playing it out will make it apparent that in future (the next party) people should design character that will work together. Differences are fine so long as they are always going to be less than reason for working together.

So long as you can all be adults about it, and players can separate their thoughts and feelings from their characters at some level. There shouldn't be a problem.

Out of interest what were the in character reasons for coming to blows?