PC threatening PC. What to do?

[CuRoi]

Meh, it's over now. The paladin killed the cleric and the campaign ended.

Ooops...should a skipped to the end

Ah well, good times, heh.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Ah well, good times, heh.

Ayup, It turned out well enough I suppose. Not what I'd planned for, but not horrible.

At any rate, you've definitely earned XP for the best description of the cleric's motives I've seen in this topic. There were a lot of comments earlier of "What kind of cleric would attack a paladin?". Well... That kind.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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...

If this is her first attempt at roleplaying then it failed miserably. Personally I would just tell the Paladin player that he should heal up turn around and challenge the cleric to single combat to the death for attempting to murder him. Once the cleric is dead throw her body in the ocean to feed the sharks and be done with it.

Btw, as a side note, telling parties in advance that they must get along generally works but you have to be careful. Quite often this is an open door for someone to play the party prick and do all sorts of annoying things because there are no consequences.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I am kind of disappointed that things came to such a brutal and swift end.

Though, did the two players like each other? Clearly, their characters were at each others' throats, but I am curious if the players were friends or if they have known each otner for years.

I would just imagine that the whole thing seemed uncomfortable. Of course, I was also disappointed to hear that the cleric's player found everything that was not role playing kinda pointless. Maybe she would have more fun with an Xbox?

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I am kind of disappointed that things came to such a brutal and swift end.

Though, did the two players like each other? Clearly, their characters were at each others' throats, but I am curious if the players were friends or if they have known each otner for years.

I would just imagine that the whole thing seemed uncomfortable. Of course, I was also disappointed to hear that the cleric's player found everything that was not role playing kinda pointless. Maybe she would have more fun with an Xbox?

Yes, the two players remained friendly from start to finish and throughout this whole fiasco. They would go from intense glares and threats in character to offering to get the other player a drink in a heartbeat.

I agree I was disappointed that she only ever wanted to do combat. Granted people have their different likes and styles, but it's not called a role playing game for nothing. You're meant to play a role. Maybe she would indeed have more fun with an Xbox, she has been playing an unhealthy amount of Fallout New Vegas since our game ended.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Yes, the two players remained friendly from start to finish and throughout this whole fiasco. They would go from intense glares and threats in character to offering to get the other player a drink in a heartbeat.

I agree I was disappointed that she only ever wanted to do combat. Granted people have their different likes and styles, but it's not called a role playing game for nothing. You're meant to play a role. Maybe she would indeed have more fun with an Xbox, she has been playing an unhealthy amount of Fallout New Vegas since our game ended.

Well, there is nothing - absolutely NOTHING - wrong with some Fallout: New Vegas, but I see where that is important to bring up.

Was she the only one in the group who had such a rabid, well, anti-role playing stance?

Maybe you mentioned it and I missed it and maybe we're beating a dead horse since the deal is closed, but were these people close friends or were they people you knew through school, a gaming club, gaming store, etc.?

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Maybe you mentioned it and I missed it and maybe we're beating a dead horse since the deal is closed, but were these people close friends or were they people you knew through school, a gaming club, gaming store, etc.?

I, the paladin and cleric in conflict, and our group's sorcerer have been close friends for a while. The second cleric is a friend of the sorcerer's from school, but the rest of us have only just met him.

And yeah she was the only one in the group so against roleplaying. The rest of us tend to play the game primarily for the roleplay. We don't mind combat, it's fun too, but I (and all of them have expressed the same opinion at some point or another) feel that roleplay is the most important part of roleplaying games.

 

[Luce]

You know the players best, but from the description it seems no real animosity exist between the players (so far), both just want to play their characters immersibly. My proposed solution will be to give them a incentive to act together (begrudgingly) by introducing a third party as common enemy. Whether it is another adventuring group having the same goal, or just the guardians of whatever they are trying to get. If both separate parties are stumped, trawled or even captured and thrown together may give them an in-game incentive to reconcile. Having said that, do not force the issue, just provide an opportunity, if they decide to walk away... that is their decision.
I would like to think that, they will decide to work together, ans stay together afterwards playing on that in-party rivalry for long time.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

It's already done actually. They killed each other about a month ago.

 

[Banshee16]

(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.

That's a difficult one. I had something similar happen in a game years back, and it *did* end with one of the characters murdering the other. It ended up splitting the group of players. In this case, it was in a Dragonlance campaign, where a Qualinesti fighter/mage argued with a Knight of Solamnia during an adventure when they were fleeing a raid near Daargaard Keep, and literally, by surprise, pushed the knight into a room inhabited by several of Lord Soth's skeletal warriors, and locked the door so he couldn't get out. Outnumbered, and with no light, the knight was butchered.

I think the most important thing is to determine, with the players, whether there are personal feelings involved. There's the real potential to lose a character. If the players are able to accept that this might occur, and be ok with it, as a natural part of the story arc of their characters, then it's possible for this to turn into a roleplaying experience that they learn something from.

The key is whether the players are mature enough that it won't split the group. Mine weren't.

I had something similar in another group, years later, but different, more mature players were involved. It was in Planescape. One of the characters in the party was a member of the Harmonium, and the other was a rogue. The rogue during the course of a few adventures broke some laws, and had an arrest warrant issued for him. I discussed it with the players, and the player of the rogue insisted such behaviour was natural for his character, and he accepted the potential consequences. I pointed out the duty of the other players' character might cause a conflict, as his Faction required him to arrest lawbreakers. He understood that, and explained that he'd try to be more circumspect with his character's thefts, when near the other party member.

In the end, later in the campaign, he was observed, and during a break in Sigil, the Harmonium character's superiors learned of his relationship with the rogue, and he was ordered to bring him in. The player was faced with a hard choice, but eventually chose to arrest the other party member. He was brought before the Guvners, tried and convicted. I ended up giving him to a particular judge who was a Nalfeshness known for draining the spirits of plaintiffs who appeared before him. The character was given a choice of 5 years hard labour (thus removing him from the campaign), or submitting to being drained. We role played out how getting drained by a law abiding Tanar'ri would be a debilitating, terrifying experience, and I believe the character lost a level as a result. He suffered a penalty to all his actions for the next adventure, to simulate being emotionless etc. And, after that next adventure, I removed the penalty, to simulate that he was starting to develop emotions again, thanks to new experiences.

So, basically, what started as a conflict between competing goals between two characters resulted in a roleplaying experience that rooted the characters more into the game world.

The players didn't resent each other, because it was talked out in advance, and I'd explicitly stated I did not want their roleplaying to result in personal grudges. Years afterwards, it was one of those campaign events that everyone still got a laugh about.

In your case, you have a cleric and a paladin, so you have some important questions. Do they follow the same god? Allied gods? Gods who are enemies? If their gods are allies, why are their followers fighting? What do those gods (or that god) have to say about it? A cleric's powers (and a paladin's, to an extent) are god-given, and as such, can be taken away at a moment's notice if the god disagrees with what their servant is doing. It could be a sign to one or both characters of the disapproval their god views their current behaviour with, if some of their powers stop working (temporarily).

Of course, this doesn't work if they follow separate (adversarial) gods.

Banshee