Jastermereel
2010-06-10, 05:26 PM
I've seen a number of posts about how to discourage infighting brought on by obnoxious rogues or "evil" parties, but is it a bad idea to encourage some strife between characters?
The party has been playing together for 5 levels, since around September, and are about to enter into a major stage of the campaign, the Red Hand of Doom module. However, I was thinking about giving the characters some inter-personal conflicts to deal with, but I wasn't sure if it might help give them some interesting role-play fodder, or if it might be a really really really bad idea.
For example, one of them is a goliath barbarian who has been traveling far from home as a diplomat (of sorts) gauging public opinion on the idea of an alliance between her people (a northern tribe of goliaths) and that of the locals (a large kingdom, largely populated by humans). Her people have been under attack for a while (I'm thinking Gnolls but we never really spelled it out) and thought an alliance might alleviate some of the strain. However, the idea I had is that while she's been out traveling (for at least several weeks), the Red Hand might have dealt with the Gnolls, and formed an alliance with the Goliaths (to add some further flair to their ranks). She and the rest of the party will find this out together when she encounters one of her tribe sent to debrief her, end her mission, and bring her home to prepare for war. Given the bond the character has formed with some of the others, I suspect this will not go well at all for the messenger. While she might be open to the idea of going to war against the people she's been traveling among for some time, she will likely balk if ordered to kill her traveling companions so that there are no "local spies" to report back as a warning.
Is it a bad idea to throw a potentially party-sundering choice into the mix?
Another twist being considered involves two characters, one seeking revenge for the murder of her grandmother and mentor by unknown agents and a rogue from a guild that was wiped out (again, likely by Red-Hand related elements). Is it wrong to foment strife by tying the backstories together with the rogue's group being the responsible party in the grandmother's murder? The rogue wouldn't be one who was directly responsible, but would still be tied to the event.
This is my first real campaign (I'd subbed in for the previous DM while he hit some rough patches in grad-school, with a mini-campaign and a silly monstrous campaign), and it's been going rather well so far I feel, but I wanted to throw the characters a curve-ball or two. I just don't want to have the curve-ball hit them in the head, injure party/player morale and have them walk to first base, over-stretching a metaphor along the way.
The party has been playing together for 5 levels, since around September, and are about to enter into a major stage of the campaign, the Red Hand of Doom module. However, I was thinking about giving the characters some inter-personal conflicts to deal with, but I wasn't sure if it might help give them some interesting role-play fodder, or if it might be a really really really bad idea.
For example, one of them is a goliath barbarian who has been traveling far from home as a diplomat (of sorts) gauging public opinion on the idea of an alliance between her people (a northern tribe of goliaths) and that of the locals (a large kingdom, largely populated by humans). Her people have been under attack for a while (I'm thinking Gnolls but we never really spelled it out) and thought an alliance might alleviate some of the strain. However, the idea I had is that while she's been out traveling (for at least several weeks), the Red Hand might have dealt with the Gnolls, and formed an alliance with the Goliaths (to add some further flair to their ranks). She and the rest of the party will find this out together when she encounters one of her tribe sent to debrief her, end her mission, and bring her home to prepare for war. Given the bond the character has formed with some of the others, I suspect this will not go well at all for the messenger. While she might be open to the idea of going to war against the people she's been traveling among for some time, she will likely balk if ordered to kill her traveling companions so that there are no "local spies" to report back as a warning.
Is it a bad idea to throw a potentially party-sundering choice into the mix?
Another twist being considered involves two characters, one seeking revenge for the murder of her grandmother and mentor by unknown agents and a rogue from a guild that was wiped out (again, likely by Red-Hand related elements). Is it wrong to foment strife by tying the backstories together with the rogue's group being the responsible party in the grandmother's murder? The rogue wouldn't be one who was directly responsible, but would still be tied to the event.
This is my first real campaign (I'd subbed in for the previous DM while he hit some rough patches in grad-school, with a mini-campaign and a silly monstrous campaign), and it's been going rather well so far I feel, but I wanted to throw the characters a curve-ball or two. I just don't want to have the curve-ball hit them in the head, injure party/player morale and have them walk to first base, over-stretching a metaphor along the way.