PC vs. PC XP

[Goolpsy]

ZuulMog thats your own interpretation of the "Way of Nature", And people interpretate things diffrently.. moreover.. they THINK diffrently.. Just like allowing the Ranger to skin the Wolf encourage such behavoir (oops i killed it, i better take its skin) in the same way that, awarding xp for "slaying" or fighting party members does.

You could say its the way of nature and its spirit to burry the corpse as whole. Earth give creations as a Whole.. and recieves them the same way. Else the earth might not accept the Wolf's body? And its spirit might not be released.

And No the example doesn't have anything to do with the General Question: "Would You or wouldn't You give xp to a character fighting his own party? and why"

Read the question as general.. not as situation based.

 

[irdeggman]

No XP for the encounter, perhaps for role-playing but not overcoming obstacles or defeating opponents.

2nd ed rewarded players for individual performance actins but 3.0/3.5 totally did away with that and all awards are best on the party and not individuals. This was one of the best comceptual changes made to the game IMO.

2nd ed was all about promoting inner party conflict while 3.0/3.5 is dedicated to poromting the concept of working together.

If players are rewarded for not working together then rogues shoudl gain experience points for stealing from other party memebers (something they got in 2nd ed).

 

[freebfrost]

I would not award experience for beating other PCs in combat. There are no rules to back me up on this, or to back up the other PoV, save the fact that if you're trying to foster a cooperative atmosphere, awarding experience for that combat would not do so.

Motives don't matter.

And this is what I am looking for here - and thanks to you Dan and to the others who are actually reading my request.

So you think that the real motivation behind awarding XP is to foster cooperation. Can you apply that to NPCs also, or do you think this is a case where the rules necessarily have to override the "reality" of the game world?

By the way, DanMcS is the scout...

 

[October Raven]

I hate to break it to you, but other's opinions on your PC's actions DO matter. Just as a Paladin must obey a code of conduct, just as a monk must fit within a certain pattern of behavior, all divine spellcasters must listen to the voice of a higher authority. In the case of a druid, it is both nature and their diety.

Exactly. And if I were DMing this, I'd call it a very un-Druidic act, and hypocritical, which is either a LE or CE act depending on the scenario (I'd say CE here but that's just me), and seeing on how extreme you acted I'd even go so far as to make this grounds for an alignment chance, and that would mean you would lose Druidhood until you atoned.

In other words, you might as well be teaching them how to speak Druidic, because your character, in my eyes as a DM, isn't a proper Druid.

 

[freebfrost]

If players are rewarded for not working together then rogues shoudl gain experience points for stealing from other party memebers (something they got in 2nd ed).

Oooh, excellent point. I had forgotten that fact...

So would you agree with the question I posed to DanMcS? Given that there are leveled NPCs in the world who obviously do not gain XP from necessarily working in cooperation with a team (an assassin for example), is this something that you think can be worked into the way the game setting works or do you think that this is something that really can only be maintained for PCs to encourage them to work together?

 

[Goolpsy]

October Raven

Actually it would be more like a LG act... so alignment change better than good?? or add Saint template?

 

[October Raven]

October Raven

Actually it would be more like a LG act... so alignment change better than good?? or add Saint template?

Being hypocritical (saying that skinning the wolf is wrong even though a druid uses animal skin as armor) is not LG.

 

[DanMcS]

And this is what I am looking for here - and thanks to you Dan and to the others who are actually reading my request.

So you think that the real motivation behind awarding XP is to foster cooperation. Can you apply that to NPCs also, or do you think this is a case where the rules necessarily have to override the "reality" of the game world?

By the way, DanMcS is the scout...

No, I think awarding xp is to reward playing, reward overcoming challenges by the party, and let players enjoy advancing their characters. It also happens to be the only mechanical carrot/stick I have to encourage cooperation, so it has to serve double duty for that for me. That's why I noted that there was no support either way in the rules, it's just how I would do it. I would also encourage you guys to work this out amongst you before we play again

I played the scout, who was not even in the vicinity of the fight, so it's all neither here nor there to me.

 

[Artoomis]

I would absolutely NOT give XP for this. In my experience, I have never found it really valuable to in any way encourage or reward PV vs. PC combat like this. It can cause hard feeling among players, is not conducive to PC or player teamwork, and is generally not very heroic.

I would not play with, or DM for, a group that RP'd itself to fight each other like this. This game is supposed to be about PC's working together, not fighting amongst each other.

Players really should be cooperating or else why are they playing this sort of game if they have to constantly worry about other PCs killing them off?

Now, occasionally, some PC vs. PC conflict happens within the game context and cannot be avoided, but that should be rare and certainly not at first level, and I'd still not award any XP for it - including any for RP bonuses.

 

[freebfrost]

Exactly. And if I were DMing this, I'd call it a very un-Druidic act, and hypocritical, which is either a LE or CE act depending on the scenario (I'd say CE here but that's just me), and seeing on how extreme you acted I'd even go so far as to make this grounds for an alignment chance, and that would mean you would lose Druidhood until you atoned.

In other words, you might as well be teaching them how to speak Druidic, because your character, in my eyes as a DM, isn't a proper Druid.

From the SRD: A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities...

From dictionary.com: re·vere1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-vîr) To regard with awe, deference, and devotion

From the SRD: Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satisfied now? Probably not.

Sigh.

Can we talk about the mechanics of awarding XP? Isn't this the "Rules" forum?