Where Dragons Rule? More like What's With the Party?

[LichPrinceAlim]

I have a twisted game of D&D on Fridays. Let me explain... Here's the Party:

Me: Silverbrow Human Sorcerer 2/Human Paragon 3/Silver Dragon Disiple 7
Casey (Former DM): Lesser Drow Wizard 5/Fire Mage 7
Allona (Former DM's G/F): Half-Elf Ninja 7/Assassin 5
Matt: Half- Orc Half-Aasamir Paladin 5/Dragonslayer 5/Cavalier 2
Adam: Half-Orc Half-Neanderthal Druid 1/Half-Orc Paragon 3/Human Paragon 3/Orc Paragon 3 (DM removed the minor rule on Paragon Classes)
Lee: Warforged Fighter 12
Jake: Warforged Monk 12
Tyler (DM): Elf Ranger 12

the party is weird, and we have MAJOR alignment issues.

Got tips to keep us from killing each other off?

[Kylarra]

Mercenaries based on a tad of mutual respect for each person's abilities? You may not like what they do, or like the person, but you respect what they're capable of as long as it's not directed at you.

something where you need each other to survive... at least until the end of the mission/campaign/story is probably your best bet.

[Thrawn183]

There's no profit in fighting each other? You can accomplish far greater things together than you could apart? The end justifies the means (in terms of who you associate with)

[Eurus]

There's no profit in fighting each other? You can accomplish far greater things together than you could apart? The end justifies the means (in terms of who you associate with)

Says who? Your average adventurer carries enough value in magic items to found a small kingdom with. It'd be difficult to find a more profitable venture than hunting adventurers, actually... :smallamused:

[LichPrinceAlim]

Its complicated, because every party member has at least one member who they feud with...

[Kylarra]

Says who? Your average adventurer carries enough value in magic items to found a small kingdom with. It'd be difficult to find a more profitable venture than hunting adventurers, actually... :smallamused:Yeah, that's why I said mutual respect/need otherwise there's no particular reason to not gank your party members for their loot ... well except possibly the paladin.

[nedz]

You're not that weird - its not like some of you have three legs or anything :)

The party does seem quite large though.

Why is it you are all together, did you just meet in a tavern or something ?

Do you have a purpose ?

If not you are liable to fragment.

[Kylarra]

Its complicated, because every party member has at least one member who they feud with...New plan. Battle Royale, winners comprise the core of the new party, losers remake into party-friendly characters. :smallamused:

[Fishy]

Its complicated, because every party member has at least one member who they feud with...

You're going to need to draw up a chart.

[Darwin]

Start by asking your DM to retire the DM-PC. The only thing he'll do is clog down combat and possibly take the spotlight away from the rest of the party every now and then. DM-PCs should only be used in small parties that need the extra help, your party is large and have a fairly healthy composition.

Set boundaries with the others players OOC of how far your feuds will go. Never, EVER let it become a personal issue between you. Always talk to your fellow players before you do something again their characters and always make sure the player playing the character agrees to your planned actions. That goes for all of you.

Don't forget to have fun, D&D isn't about playing out a realistic social life between super heroes, it's about having fun. Don't forget that.

[LichPrinceAlim]

For Backstory, Io and the former DM's epic God Demilich, Inferno, summoned us to fight some unknown evil that was Abyssal in Origin that was sapping the power of the Gods for its own evil ambition. We began in Menzobarrazen around the time Drizzt left, and recently killed a Black Dracolich.

We all have "words of power" pertaining to our unique abilities (our Druid is Nature, the Monk is Elements, and the Assassin is Death) and a unique weapon that only works for us.

The issue is we just gained a few of these players and the DMPC is there for his magical ability to summon Elf Rangers to give us a hand (he's an elvish prince)

[chiasaur11]

Strict code of honor for everyone: They only kill in immediate self defense, or for money.

Taking the money off a corpse is violating the principle of the whole thing.

Admittedly, it makes random adventuring a bit more complicated.

[jiriku]

Start by asking your DM to retire the DM-PC. The only thing he'll do is clog down combat and possibly take the spotlight away from the rest of the party every now and then. DM-PCs should only be used in small parties that need the extra help, your party is large and have a fairly healthy composition.

First step: +1 for retiring the DMPC. Your DM should be putting his full effort into presenting a quality game for his seven players. If there's a plot-specific reason why the DMPC needs to be with your party, then your DM can jolly well invent a plot-specific reason why the DMPC stops being necessary (for example, the DMPC creates a macguffin that allows the bearer to summon elven rangers, then gives it to a PC).

Second step: Rewrite the paladin's code so that he is no longer required to control his party's actions or lose his class features. It's not reasonable to expect the paladin player to bully six other players, nor would it be reasonable to expect the other players to submit to it. If you MUST have an in-game reason for the change, the head of the paladin's order can decree that the change must go in effect to preserve cohesion of the only group that has a chance to save the world: he recognizes that adhering to principle at the cost of destroying the world's only hope of survival would be asinine.

Third Step: Institute a NO-PVP rule within the party. If one player wants his character to attack another PC, the two players don't roll dice, instead they work together to agree on what the outcome would be. If the two can't agree on an outcome for the attack ("no, I'm not letting rob my character!"), then the PC can't perform the attack.

Fourth Step: The DM should identify each rivalry in the party, and require each rival's player to write down under what in-game circumstances the PC would forgive his rival or set aside his grudge for the greater good. "Never" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "when he does what I want". Once these things are spelled out, the DM can then work in-game to create those circumstances and give everyone a good and valid reason to cooperate.

[LichPrinceAlim]

First step: +1 for retiring the DMPC. Your DM should be putting his full effort into presenting a quality game for his seven players. If there's a plot-specific reason why the DMPC needs to be with your party, then your DM can jolly well invent a plot-specific reason why the DMPC stops being necessary.

Second step: Rewrite the paladin's code so that he is no longer required to control his party's actions or lose his class features. It's not reasonable to expect the paladin player to do this, nor would it be reasonable to expect the other players to submit to it. If you MUST have an in-game reason for the change, the head of the paladin's order can decree that the change must go in effect to preserve cohesion of the only group that has a chance to save the world: he recognizes that adhering to principle at the cost of destroying the world's only hope of survival would be asinine.

Third Step: Institute a NO-PVP rule within the party. If one player wants his character to attack another PC, the two players don't roll dice, instead they work together to agree on what the outcome would be. If the two can't agree on an outcome for the attack ("no, I'm not letting rob my character!"), then the PC can't perform the attack.

Fourth Step: The DM should identify each rivalry in the party, and require each rival's player to write down under what in-game circumstances the PC would forgive his rival or set aside his grudge for the greater good. "Never" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "when he does what I want". Once these things are spelled out, the DM can then work in-game to create those circumstances and give everyone a good and valid reason to cooperate.

1. its there because we originally only had 3 players...
2. the paladin's a jerk to me, because he hates dragons and i was raised by them.
3. Not an issue, yet...
4. My character will never willingly strike a dragon first, lest he loses his spellcasting

[jiriku]

OK, so in this situation, the DM would ask the paladin's player to describe under what terms his character would reconsider his treatment of you in particular or dragon disciples in general, and he asks you to describe under what terms you'd forgive the paladin for being an ass.

Once you both commit to an answer, the DM makes it happen, using his powers of Magical Plot Control(TM). Even a role-playing purist should be able to live with this. If the paladin's player refuses to cooperate with this, then you have established that he's not being a jerk to you because his character hates dragons, he's being a jerk to you because he enjoys being a jerk and he feels that the game gives him permission to do so. That would be a separate problem with a different solution, but if it comes to that, at least you'll have gotten to the heart of the matter.

[Tinydwarfman]

Play with two groups? Seriously that is a ton of players.

[AslanCross]

It's easy enough to simply retire the DMPC, really. That's a lot of players.

I think you should ask if the players will enjoy killing each other's PCs, or if they would simply choose not to. The excuse of "I'm acting in character, so I'll kill your dude" is selfish and petty.

In my upcoming Expedition to Castle Ravenloft campaign, I've got a bunch of PCs from nations that hate each other (Eberron: one is from Valenar, one is from Karrnath, and one is from Thrane.) I talked to them about it, and they pretty much agreed that they have the same objectives; who gets to keep the Tome of Strahd will be settled outside of the campaign after everything is said and done.

[EpicEvokerElf]

Same points as above.
1. Plot-centric, not "because we used to have fewer people." You don't anymore, clearly; the DM should be a good enough storyteller to logically get rid of him.
2. (jiriku said it)
3. ...but nonetheless a useful rule to have in place before it might become an issue.
4. Huh? The point wasn't about your character's code of honor, it's that the various rivalries need to be written out so that everyone understands everyone else, and every character needs circumstances that would permit him/her to move beyond these rivalries.