PC vs. PC XP

[Lord Wyrm]

OK, as a table top DM near constantly for years I have this to say:

You get Lvl*50 XP for roleplay (other DMs may prefer a different amount)

The Ranger gets the same (its in character)

The Sorc gets nothing (wasn't his place), unless his character were good (not neutral) or exceedingly loyal to folks he just met.

Same treatment with the Rogue

and Finally, I as DM look up a monster with a CR I feel you can take if you handle it right and yell "Sic'em Boy". Darn those ill-timed "random" (wink-wink) encounters.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I see no obstacle that the party has overcome, & I award only party xp, so no xp award.

Players have no right to demand an award, it is an award given by the dm. The players may have a legitimate expectation of character advancement during a campaign but the minutiae is left to the dm. Unless the dm is participating in this thread, this is mere speculation which assumes the default xp method, but the dm may not even use this. Ok I see

As a dm I'd slap down any specific request for xp & as a player I'd feel embarrassed to ask for it.

 

[gunter uxbridge]

Again...I am the DM os the game in question....

I didn't see anything wrong with asking about the XP. Frankly, it hadn't occured to me at all. And you must admit, there is an enormous hole in the rules for covering instances like this. I think the compromise I decided on was fine in this instance. Any future instances of PCs attacking PCs might have be be dealt with differently, though I don't see the problem continuing.

 

[Artoomis]

Again...I am the DM os the game in question....

I didn't see anything wrong with asking about the XP. Frankly, it hadn't occured to me at all. And you must admit, there is an enormous hole in the rules for covering instances like this. I think the compromise I decided on was fine in this instance. Any future instances of PCs attacking PCs might have be be dealt with differently, though I don't see the problem continuing.

Well, you're the DM , so it's your choice. After thinking about this for a bit, I think I would award an XP PENALTY to the druid and MAYBE the ranger, too, for creating and furthering a situation and solution that involved unneeded PC vs. PC combat.

Role playing between PCs should not involve combat most of the time - and definitely not at first level. If it combat really needs to happen, then players made (and DM allowed) poor choices to be made on the nature of the PCs.

Sometimes role playing gets a bit carried away and players forget that they are crafting a character who works WITH the party - even if for their own reasons.

The two basic extremes of this are the PC who adventures with the party to further some higher cause that the whole party believes in (rescue the damsel or whatever) or the secretly terribly evil PC who has only their own self-interest at heart and therefore sticks with the party because it’s the smart thing to do - better chance f survival, more likely to eventually lead to the ultimate goal of world domination, whatever.

Either way, no PC vs. PC combat results, even though PCs may be wildly apart on philosophies of life.

All that said, I might award RP XP for party members who stepped in to resolve the situation in the best way possible.

 

[DonTadow]

I would never dream of telling you how to roleplay *your* character. However, I do not understand your motive here. Druids (as I understand it) have no objections to hunting for food, or using skins for clothing/armor. Standard Druid armor is Leather or Hide... It could be argued that the Ranger was honoring the fallen beast by making use of its hide (kind of a fantasy-pseudo-native-american-thing).

For example: Kres - Talenta Halfling Druid (5th / Beast Master 1) wears hide armor and helm/hunting mask fashioned from the hide and bones of his original Clawfoot animal companion. Whisper Wind died in his backstory, fighting to save Kres from Valenar riders. Kres believes that in this way he honors Whisper Wind's sacrifice. Admitingly, I made Kres when TnT's series "Into the West" was just coming out, and Kres was made with a "Fantasy Native American Shaman" concept in mind.

As to the matter at hand, rewarding inter-party conflict is not for everybody. Personally I would give 1/2 xp as if defeating the two CR 1 characters, but not for the fight. Instead I would reward having the brass to back up your character's convictions... even though I personally don't understand them. Personally, I would much rather have some inter-party conflict in the beginning than the typical cheesy "you guys meet in a Tavern" thing. Hopefully your party learns and grows from this minor conflict.

I got to agree. This is my understanding of druids. Fallen beasts are honored by using all of their hide and meat to good use. It is apart of nature and the natural order of things. Thats why druids don't do metal or technology, it is against the natural order.

 

[Belbarid]

I got to agree. This is my understanding of druids. Fallen beasts are honored by using all of their hide and meat to good use. It is apart of nature and the natural order of things. Thats why druids don't do metal or technology, it is against the natural order.

Yeah, but this is a character class, not a cookie-cutter philosophy archetype. The arguement of "You're a Druid, so you have to think/feel/believe *this*" defeats the purpose of role-playing.

You've listed one possible way of thinking, but to then imply that this is the way ALL druids must think is unnecessarily restrictive.

Suppose, for instance, I wanted to play a druid or ranger that held the lives of animals in higher regard than the lives of most people. I would, then, be horribly offended at the idea of skinning and animal, just as another might be offended at the idea of skinning another person. The same could go for eating an animal.

The point is, this thread has had a lot of "Druids must think this way and the way you played a druid is WRONG" sort of posts. I may not (in fact, don't) agree with the decisions the *player* made, and I often comment that a *character* is acting stupidly, but to say that someone is playing a character incorrectly because you've never thought of playing a character in that way goes against the spirit of the game.

 

[Artoomis]

...Suppose, for instance, I wanted to play a druid or ranger that held the lives of animals in higher regard than the lives of most people. I would, then, be horribly offended at the idea of skinning and animal, just as another might be offended at the idea of skinning another person. The same could go for eating an animal...

Not necessarily. Holding something in high regard while alive is not the same as what you do with it after death. That's all I'll say, as getting into that is, I think, off-topic and delves into trying to tell people how to roleplay their character, a job more appropriate for the players and DM invovled.

 

[DonTadow]

Yeah, but this is a character class, not a cookie-cutter philosophy archetype. The arguement of "You're a Druid, so you have to think/feel/believe *this*" defeats the purpose of role-playing.

You've listed one possible way of thinking, but to then imply that this is the way ALL druids must think is unnecessarily restrictive.

Suppose, for instance, I wanted to play a druid or ranger that held the lives of animals in higher regard than the lives of most people. I would, then, be horribly offended at the idea of skinning and animal, just as another might be offended at the idea of skinning another person. The same could go for eating an animal.

The point is, this thread has had a lot of "Druids must think this way and the way you played a druid is WRONG" sort of posts. I may not (in fact, don't) agree with the decisions the *player* made, and I often comment that a *character* is acting stupidly, but to say that someone is playing a character incorrectly because you've never thought of playing a character in that way goes against the spirit of the game.

Actually, it would be similiar to a paladin falling the code of good and honor or a cleric following his god. The druid comes equiped with guidelines on what a druid is and waht typical druidic philosphy is. Unless the DM changes this druidic philosophy, then players playing druids have to put these basic beliefs into their character archetype, same as clerics and paladins and their relgiions.

 

[Belbarid]

Actually, it would be similiar to a paladin falling the code of good and honor or a cleric following his god. The druid comes equiped with guidelines on what a druid is and waht typical druidic philosphy is. Unless the DM changes this druidic philosophy, then players playing druids have to put these basic beliefs into their character archetype, same as clerics and paladins and their relgiions.

Yes, but this is going from "Following A General Philosophy" to "Micromanagement".

Reverence for nature can take more than one form- as has been amply shown. To say that all druids must believe the same way about this specific issue is at best silly. We're not talking about a druid who cleared an old growth forest because his strip-mining operation had expended to the point where he could sink its profits into his veal empire and needed more cattle pen room. We're talking about a druid who was violently offended at an animal being skinned.

 

[Bastoche]

Actually, it would be similiar to a paladin falling the code of good and honor or a cleric following his god. The druid comes equiped with guidelines on what a druid is and waht typical druidic philosphy is. Unless the DM changes this druidic philosophy, then players playing druids have to put these basic beliefs into their character archetype, same as clerics and paladins and their relgiions.

I agree 1000% It's like telling a cleric of Lathander should be allowed to hate the sun else it would "defeats the purpose of role-playing."