PC threatening PC. What to do?

[Water Bob]

I think it sounds cool. It hits me as some events that would keep the players extremely interested in the game. If it were me, I'd make this the center of my story, changing what I had originally come up with.

There's so much you can do with this.

Do the Cleric and the Paladin share the same god? Are we witnessing a battle of gods right in front of us? If they do share the same god, then maybe we're seeing a battle between different factions of the same church?



Here's what I would do: I'd make up extreme story reasons to keep the party together. I'd play up the animosity between the two characters, and I'd even the playing field a bit either by making the paladin a bit stronger somehow (finds some allies?) or weakening the cleric (maybe his god bristles at his actions?).

I would turn up the external events so that the two of them will have no choice but to work together with a wary alliance. Who knows, the two of them might even become friends later, as we've seen in tons of movies.

I think you've got a goldmine here. Party intrigue. You just have to manage it well and be creative. This kind of conflict can be quite fun, taking the game into a direction you never saw coming.

I say embrace it and make it fun for everyone involved.

 

[Elf Witch]

How do the other players feel about this? If they don't care then you can allow this to go on to its natural conclusion.

But if they do then is it fair for these two players to mess up their fun.

I allow some PC V PC conflict in game as long as it does not lead to killing or breaking up the group.

If this happened in my group I would hold mu hand out for the character sheet of the cleric because she attacked and the character would become an NPC.

 

[chaochou]

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.

Imo, the real point is about player honesty. Did the cleric player say up front "My cleric must be party leader and is willing to kill any character that challenges my authority?"

Cos that's quite a militant position to take, and the burden is on that player to make it clear. Passing off a surprise attack on another character later as being 'in character' is meaningless if the nature of 'your character' had been concealed up to that point.

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'd say - don't look for an in-game solution to an out of game problem. The respective players have failed to communicate their views and goals and created this situation. It's as much their job to solve it as yours.

It's not the sole responsibility of the GM to keep the game going and making it fun - everyone at the table shares that responsibility. I'd make that clear to your players. And talk to the two who aren't fighting to see what they want - they're just as important.

 

[Jared Rascher]

I can relate, and I can see resolving it one of two ways. However, once you start down a path, you should probably stick to that path. It's a tough situation.

1. Let them resolve it in character. I have had a player in one of my campaigns pretty much swear that he's going to follow a situation through and the rest of the party swears to oppose him, even if it means death, and somehow, when the actual situation comes up, they didn't end up killing each other.

It may be that they think there is no way they can work together in character at this point in time, but given a few more sessions of roleplaying and development, that "only one resolution" mentality might fade a bit, especially in the face of a greater threat.

However, if you allow them this freedom, you do have to be prepared for them to resolve it, in character, by killing each other. In that case, you are going to need to think long and hard on if you can continue this campaign with the fatalities or if you need to start another campaign.

2. Just level with the players. Tell them that GMing is a difficult job, and while it may make sense for the characters to fight it out, it makes your job harder, and the GM already has a lot on their plate without having to map out dual paths and come up with other plans if half the party kills one another.

In character, if they agree to let you bring them back together, you can always give the cleric a vision from her god that tells her the paladin is useful to their cause, and perhaps give the paladin a similar sending. If you know what motivates them both well enough, you can have some nastier force seeking after the same thing they are, and a brush with an agent of that force that is a horrible, unacceptable option for finding the whatever is enough to remind them they need to work together.

But in the end, if you really, really are having a hard time GMing this, level with them and tell them it's hard for you to juggle this and you need some way to resolve this where you can run one party that isn't trying to kill each other again.

 

[Dykstrav]

I can't speak to the maturity of your players or how they're going to react to what you've got in mind for the future of the game. But I can tell you one thing for certain.

Far, far too many obnoxious players try to use "I was in character" as an excuse to justify being a jerk, either in-character or out-of-character.

Don't put up with that. I firmly believe that a player's duty is to work as part of a team and to make the game fun for participants (that includes you, by the way, and I'm willing to bet that trying to figure out how to keep the group together isn't a whole lot of fun). If the player is having leadership and/or authority issues now, that player will keep having those issues in the future. Your opportunity here is to either reinforce and encourage the behavior (by allowing the players to work it out amongst themselves, letting them solve it "in character," or by passively ignoring the entire situation), or you can set your expectations openly and directly.

I'd have a blunt and honest conversation with your players if I were you. I despise passive-aggressive behavior and I've had far too much of it, especially among gamers.

At the very least, I'd change the cleric's alignment to chaotic evil on the spot. Dishonorably attacking a character that epitomizes lawful good virtues and using the threat of violence in an attempt to take authority is pretty much the epitome of chaotic evil in my book. That might make the character ineligible to serve as a cleric of their deity (due to alignment differences), in which case, the character either seeks an atonement spell or to change deities.

Whatever you do, don't let the behavior just happen in a vacuum--make the character's decisions have some consequences, and not all of them good ones. If there aren't any repercussions from behavior like that, expect your game to go in that direction and to see a lot more of it.

 

[RainOfSteel]

(Apologies for the upcoming long post...)

Things turned sour at a session today [...]

I, for one, have no issues with you taking the time to write some material for our consideration.

A cleric traveling with a paladin. What was the cleric's alignment? Because if there was a "good" descriptor in there (which I am vaguely assuming since there was a paladin in the group), it's gone now as far as I am concerned. This may make the cleric unable to serve any longer and lose all of his or her powers. At a minimum, the action alone would certainly include penalties in lost spells or abilities pending an atonement.

Also, if either served the same god or the same "side" of a pantheon, that cleric just lost her powers to the last. As in the cleric is struck to his/her knees with a vision regarding the god's displeasure, and all divine abilities and spells are stripped out on the spot. A quest and atonement (of substantial size and severity) would be required to get them back. You do not attack a holy champion of your religion and not seriously suffer for it.

Attacking from behind? I also hope that cleric serves no god for which cowardice or underhandedness was an issue, because that would also bring some degree of divine retaliation.

An event like this could easily show up in "signs and portents" read by oracles and seers. Even if the two involved never discuss it with anyone else, it isn't like the higher powers (who would know) wouldn't tell their other servants, and so knowledge of what happened will spread. If they didn't, the enemies of the higher powers certainly will in order to sow more discord and evil. There is nothing like spreading around the story of a paladin getting pasted to splash dirt on the paladin's god.

I don't know how the local religion is structured, or its powers, but paladins are generally considered heroes of the people, and are extra-holy at that. Attacking a paladin from behind would generally be regarding as a serious matter by both civil and religious parties. If the cleric's name and description became bandies about in general talk, he or she might find it difficult to obtain lodging or services, and could legitimately be seized on charges of heresy at a temple or castle.

If the second cleric stays with the first, he or she could inherit the taint of the first cleric's transgressions in the eyes of the populace through association.

When I get down further into your discussion, I see that you agreed that this was all in character. Sorry, but you gave insufficient information to explain how that could occur. Lawful Good usually does not mix well with Chaotic Neutral or the various Evil combinations. If the cleric was neutral, well, it's more of judgment call depending on which side neutrality was currently supporting. Since neutrality can support Evil and/or Chaos, paladins could easily have trouble with that if there were any suggestion or history of actually having done it.

--------

I'm not sure how attached you are to this game or the people involved, but:

Sit the two down and explain that their positions are seriously disrupting your game. Either they agree to retcon what happened and happily live with it, or stop the game. Otherwise, you're pandering to babyishness.

--------

In our local group's games, it has been a long-standing tradition that any type of actual PvP activity (actual fighting) is banned and subject to instant unlimited GM retaliation. While somewhat contrived, it works. Actual fights never happen as a result, although some obnoxious types still like to go around saying, "My PC could kill your PC." </eyes rolling>

 

[the Jester]

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.

This is true for certain playstyles but absolutely the worst solution for others. For some of us, "acting in character" trumps "need to work together" even even it leads to this sort of stuff.

That said, the first thing I'd do is examine the cleric vis-a-vis his relationship with his god and expected behavior. If he worships a "fair fight" god, he should lose access to some of his powers at least, likewise if he is a cleric of an allegedly good god there may be some issues.

Since it sounds as though everyone is fine letting things play out, I think the real issue is the division of time. I would make sure that everyone is damn aware that these two have decided that they will take half of everyone's game time away by splitting the party. Assuming your players can play this out without getting personal, that's the issue that really matters imho.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Gargoyle]

Just because an action is "in character" does not mean it is good role playing or in the best interest of the game. IMO the player of the cleric is bored and acting selfishly.

I'd keep the party together and see how it plays out with all the player characters interacting. Splitting the party may seem like a solution to avoid conflict, but I think you're just delaying the inevitable and possibly missing out on some great fun.

If PvP breaks out again, I would let it run its course, since it wasn't forbidden before the game started.

If it gets to the point where the players (or the DM) aren't having fun because of the arguing, then get heavy handed and make the player character with the highest Charisma the leader of the group. If they don't like that, then just tell them that role playing is fine, but that you have prepared adventures for a cooperative group, and they are are making it too hard to DM. They don't have to role play that they like each other all the time, but request that they act like friends or allies for the sake of the game.

And yeah, have something nasty show up that requires them to cooperate or die. Killing them all off isn't necessarily a bad thing. Players seem to want their characters to die sometimes...like kids who just have to know how far they can push their parents...

 

[billd91]

I usually let PCvPC situations play themselves out unless I get the impression it's really a player v player personality clash. Then I step in and tell the players to knock it off. Sometimes, however, it's not easy to tell if it's getting personal.

One way to find out may be coming up for you. When it comes time to split the party (or as it approaches), tell your players it's fine to dissolve the adventuring party and have the PCs go their separate ways, but you won't DM two separate groups. You don't have the time. One of the two groups must make up new PCs and reform an adventuring group with the old PCs. If there's a lot of balking at that and still no willingness to reform, then it may be less a PC personality issue and more a player issue. If it's totally a PC issue, then I think players would be willing to say "Yes, this PC doesn't fit the party very well. I'll make up one that does."