PC vs. PC XP

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Leaving a slain animal to rot is a waste of nature's resources. Acting to prevent another from making use of a slain animal, to prevent that death from being a complete waste of life, is against the druidic code, not supportive of it. Not only would I not award XP's to your PC for her decidedly out-of-character actions, I'd levy a substantial penalty, and probably deny spell access and have her own animal companion either turn on her or abandon her, until some form of atonement was made.

If you want to play a spellcaster with a pet that has no rules to follow, re-roll as a sorceror and summon a familiar. Druids do not seem to be your bag, baby.

EDIT: Also, how did your party's entirely useless walking fireball wand hit upon the idea of not choosing Sleep as a 1st level spell? Your attack should have ended before it began.

That is a good interpretation of how someone who cherishes nature might act in that situation. Certainly it is not the ONLY way. Try this...

The slain wolf should not be defiled any more than it has been. That means no skinning it. Leave the wolf there to rot so that it may feed the other inhabitants of the forest.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This has nothing to do with culture, with magic, dragons or anything. It has to do with someone trying to kill me and why would I ever put my life on the line beside that person.

Trying to kill you? C'mon now... I am sure the druid (and her wolf) was attacking for subdual damage, right? Right!?

Well if not... that would be a problem...

 

[freebfrost]

Trying to kill you? C'mon now... I am sure the druid (and her wolf) was attacking for subdual damage, right? Right!?

Well if not... that would be a problem...

Metagaming hat on:

Wolf can only do enough damage to a 1st level ranger to knock him out (even with a crit).

It has a better than average chance to succeed on his Trip attack.

After either action I call the wolf off.

I enter the fray doing subdual - at best I figure if I get one hit after the wolf, I can take him. If not, I'm going down hard.​

Character hat on:

It is not hard to think that she's experienced enough with her wolf to know that she can have him knock something down and if it is a Medium-size prey, she'll have to finish it off; or in this case, tend to the fool...

She wouldn't know enough to think that a human could fight back as well as a ranger could, but that was the luck of the dice there.​

 

[Nail]

I want to know what other think about the mechanics of whether or not to reward XP for this situation. Does this count as a "challenge." If so, why? If not, why not?

Exactly. Why you RPed the situation in one way or another is irrelevant.

The XP mechanic is for "challenges overcome". There are also "ad hoc" XP methods, as I'm sure you are aware. So, mechanically speaking: if there was a challenge overcome, then you should get XP.

What most have reacted to is the potential precident this might set in your group. To me, that seems like more of a "General Forum" question.

 

[freebfrost]

Exactly. Why you RPed the situation in one way or another is irrelevant.

The XP mechanic is for "challenges overcome". There are also "ad hoc" XP methods, as I'm sure you are aware. So, mechanically speaking: if there was a challenge overcome, then you should get XP.

What most have reacted to is the potential precident this might set in your group. To me, that seems like more of a "General Forum" question.

Yup, I realize that - another reason I chose "Rules" in retrospect.

I didn't think they would have a big issue - they were surprised, but once DanMcS' scout arrived and he started playing peacemaker, I knew it was ok. They're a great bunch and know that my PCs are a bit off kilter.

My final decision for my future game, by the way, is to award XP if this situation occurs after a resolution has been reached. A PC fighting and beating a PC should learn from the encounter - you can spar with people all the time, but in a real fight, you learn the real differences in style.

So I feel XP is warranted, but I like the aspect that everyone is focusing on in the team aspect. Hence, I think I would award an ad hoc amount to everyone who participated in the encounter and RP'd to a good (i.e. team-building) conclusion.

 

[Alpha Polaris]

Experience Awards

When the party defeats monsters, you award the characters experience points (XP). The more dangerous the monsters, compared to the party's level, the more XP the characters earn. The PCs split the XP between themselves, and each character increases in level as his or her personal XP total increases.

Happy now ? Still no xp...

 

[Veril]

PC vs PC should never award XP under any circumstances for any reason whatsoever.

It should inflict an XP penalty equal to the same magnitude that XP would be awarded based on the CR of the players involved.

1) If you award XP then you encourage players to kill each other. Why bother attacking monsters, when you can just being in new player characters and kill them?

2) D&D is supposed to be a social, group game, setting the characters up as enemies directly strikes against what to me is a fundamental underpinning of the game.

3) Setting the characters up as enemies of each other, is the first step in setting the PLAYERS up as antagonists, and that can so very easily spill over into bad blood between players. That is something that should be avoided at all costs, no matter what, or it will may result in the weakening of friendships or the breakup of the group.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As a DM I don't award XP for stupidity (unless it is particularly funny, of course), and I would consider this a stupid action on the part of the druid - again I'm just speaking with my DM hat on. XPs in this circumstance would reward intra-party conflict and that is something I'm just not prepared to do.

Because frankly, after an event like this the rest of the PCs in any campaign I've run or been in would (at best) say 'get lost, we're not adventuring with you'. In the eeeevil campaign they would probably arrange an accident with extreme prejudice, but that IS the eeeeeevil campaign after all. As DM in that situation I'd warn the PC who wants to start a serious attack on another PC that it may well be that they'll end up rolling up another character, since the current PC won't be adventuring with these guys and I'm not running a solo adventure for them any time soon!

Extenuating circumstances apply - if the PC attempted a grapple to stop them, slapped them round the chops or something similar, that would be fine. But injure them badly enough that they need healing? Nope.

If PCs have been adventuring together for many levels then I'll allow some more leeway, because the joint history has a chance of pulling them together again, but regarding newly joining party members - it would just stretch our suspension of disbelief too much.

So IMC no XP, and that is the reason why.

Cheers

 

[Bastoche]

As a DM I don't award XP for stupidity (unless it is particularly funny, of course), and I would consider this a stupid action on the part of the druid - again I'm just speaking with my DM hat on. XPs in this circumstance would reward intra-party conflict and that is something I'm just not prepared to do.

Because frankly, after an event like this the rest of the PCs in any campaign I've run or been in would (at best) say 'get lost, we're not adventuring with you'. In the eeeevil campaign they would probably arrange an accident with extreme prejudice, but that IS the eeeeeevil campaign after all. As DM in that situation I'd warn the PC who wants to start a serious attack on another PC that it may well be that they'll end up rolling up another character, since the current PC won't be adventuring with these guys and I'm not running a solo adventure for them any time soon!

Extenuating circumstances apply - if the PC attempted a grapple to stop them, slapped them round the chops or something similar, that would be fine. But injure them badly enough that they need healing? Nope.

If PCs have been adventuring together for many levels then I'll allow some more leeway, because the joint history has a chance of pulling them together again, but regarding newly joining party members - it would just stretch our suspension of disbelief too much.

So IMC no XP, and that is the reason why.

Cheers

I agree 100%. And add to that the following:

If that course of action was the one and only way the character had to react due to the (imo) shallow argument of the "my guy would do that", I therefore conclude that such character is pathological. A pathological character should always be forbidden by DMs. A pathological character is a character that cannot function in a party. The obvious example is a paladin in an all evil party. It should either be booted out in-game by the other characters (resorting to the same "our guys would do that" argument) or never allowed in by the DM. In that case, a tanner ranger with a psycho druid, one of either is pathological. The one that end up pathological is the one the other party members do not side with. In that case, it's the druid.

 

[Belbarid]

A couple of opinions, likely lost in an already too-lengthy thread...

First of all, there will *always* be people who can never see character classes beyond the stereotypical archetype that T$R and WotC has crammed down our throats. Sadly, sometimes, those people run games. Fortunately, there's no law I've found that forces me to participate.

Secondly, as a player who likes to play characters who differ drasticly from the norm, I can understand the desire to play a character who would actually think that the taken course of action is okay. Keep in mind that most other players will take strong objection to this sort of behavior.

Thirdly, one of my big objections to 3.0/3.5E is a seeming trend of removing "What feels right" and replacing it with "Well *this* part of the SRD says this, which could be interpreted this way compared to *that* part of this book". Rules lawyering gets in the way.

Lastly, exactly zero XP for PVP, IMO. No mechanics backing, either. It's a bad idea. That being said, depending on the background of the druid, possible XP for the action. If the intent was to play a druid so sheltered from (demi)human society as to think that attacking another person for skinning a dead wolf is okay, then the action was in character. A character who, BTW, has a *lot* to learn, and had better speed up on the learning curve, lest a short adventuring career be in the future.

If, OTOH, this was simply generi-druid leading with a sickle across the throat when somewhat offended, rather than taking a more appropriate action (like talking it out, peacably interposing between the ranger and the wolf, tribal interpretive dance...), then *much* PC-slapping would entail. Or, assuming an inexperienced player, a long talking-to.

This isn't a rules-based question, and there's no mechanic covering it. This is definitely in the area of where the rules leave off.

Plenty of flame-bait. Assuming anyone's still paying attention to the thread.