Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kitsune9" data-source="post: 5610923" data-attributes="member: 18507">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.</blockquote>

Verification