Looking for resolutions to PC in-fighting

[icthenue]

I currently run a 3.5 campaign in which a number of characters have conflicting roleplay. Some of them make it truly interesting, but at the moment, one interaction in particular is giving the party some grief.

One of the characters is a drunkard dwarf ranger, who before the PCs met him just wanted to be left alone. One of the characters was an escaped prisoner from a small town. The prisoner attempted to cut his bonds and get some food in the dwarfs shack and was promptly attacked by the drunk dwarf. Hilarity ensued and the dwarf got his pick stuck in the door inches from the prisoners head. This was their first encounter and past stealing a handful of food, the prisoner hadn't done anything to the dwarf. After goblins attacked shortly thereafter, the dwarf kicked the door open to kill goblins, which swung into the prisoner and knocked him unconscious, sending him sprawling down the path towards the other PCs. The goblins also ended up torching the shack, while the prisoner was tied up in the night, but the dwarf blames the Prisoner for the destruction of his shack.

The prisoner has since joined the party, alongside the dwarf, and is a mouthy chap. He never calls people by their names and makes up less-than-flattering nicknames and is very cocky (boasting about avoiding a troll's entangle spell when the dwarf got stuck in it). In that instance, the dwarf hurled a sling at him (bringing him down to 0 and using up a clerics heal spell [they are level 2]), saying not to call him names and that he will kill him if he does. Now at this point, it was clear to the room that something snapped and this was no longer banter and it seemed like the player was upset, we asked them about it and they just said it was what their character would do.

What would you do in this instance, it has been a few weeks since the dwarf player has come back (due to legitimate reasons, not avoidance) and the campaign has run smoothly since. I feel like I should step in as a DM, but I don't want to stifle the roleplay or make it seem like I am not allowing them to do what they want; at the same time, I don't want a dead player just because the dwarfs heavy pick managed to crit the prisoner (who has 12 health) for 32 damage... Also, the prisoner PC has never acted in aggression towards the dwarf.

My roommate also has in-game conflict with this prisoner PC, as he is a town guard. Now, even though this seems like the most logical source of conflict, other than keeping an eye on him and knocking him out in the first day to bring him back to the town, they understand their roles as allies in light of what has happened. No trust between the two, but they need all the help they can get and they understand that. (To give a bit of backstory the town has been overrun by an undead presence and so they are forced to work together, driving the plot, etc)

Any assistance would appreciated. I want to avoid making the dwarf player roll up a new character, but if they continue being destructive towards another PC, I have a feeling the other players will kick the dwarf (as one of our characters is a good cleric and probably won't stand for lethal damage between party members)

[Medic!]

Man if there's one thing I absolutely can't stand at the table, it's someone justifying being a jerk with "That's what my character would do."

He's in control of that character, there are ways to them to work together and still keep up a humorous bickering rivalry. I've had the same problems with our table-top group...for whatever reason, the first answer to conflict is "KILL!" (Murder-hobos :smalleek: )

It probably wouldn't hurt to put a "no PvP" rule into effect at the table, and to remind everyone that we're all here to have fun. Nothing drastic has to change, but if the in-game name-calling and disrespect tones down in increments, everything should go just fine.

EDIT: Hopefully they can roleplay their way to a mutual respect/understanding and overcome their differences....that can make for a very memorable party.

[Taislin]

I think that putting a no PVP always kills the RP mood, by what you describe they are actually very into their characters and doing actual roleplay. I think you should just let it be, one might save the other in some situation, then the other wil owe him and they might get along. They can also just be waiting for the next job to end so they can kill eachother and disapear, i dunno.

In the party i play i constantly have a evil cleric trying to cast a curse on me while he and the evil wizard plan aloud how they will murder me after the empire let them go on their contract.

My character on the other way (rogue/sorc/arcane trickster) is constantly trying to survive both the fights we go into, while noone looks try to sabotage the evil cleric / wizard. I don't mind if they kill my character, it fits perfectly the role each of our characters have.



It probably wouldn't hurt to put a "no PvP" rule into effect at the table, and to remind everyone that we're all here to have fun.

EDIT: Hopefully they can roleplay their way to a mutual respect/understanding and overcome their differences....that can make for a very memorable party.

[TuggyNE]

Rich Burlew has a great article on player decisions in RPGs (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), including a section titled Decide to React Differently. The gist is that the character behaves that way largely because the player wants him to; character behavior that is toxic to party cohesion should just be avoided by the player because it's not fun for anyone (else).

[valoia]

To be fair, the dwarf is a dwarf. If someone mocks a dwarf, they might meet his axe. If they mock his name.. they should definitely meet his axe. it's a dwarf thing. names are important to them, and the prisoner needs to find that out the hard way, it would seem.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To be fair, the dwarf is a dwarf. If someone mocks a dwarf, they might meet his axe. If they mock his name.. they should definitely meet his axe. it's a dwarf thing. names are important to them, and the prisoner needs to find that out the hard way, it would seem.

While that's true, and makes for great writing on occasion, most dwarves don't live in shacks. If it was an NPC I'd've been surprised to hear he didn't live in either a home cut into the side of a cliff or a house made of some kind of masonry.

This is a PC though. The dwarf can't make any decisions for himself because he doesn't exist anywhere except in the imaginations of the players. It's the player responsible for the dwarf, the guy who drew up the character sheet, that makes all of that dwarfs decisions, and he's already, apparently, decided that it's not a typical dwarf, on account of living in a shack and becoming an adventurer. He needs to tone down the surliness a bit.

The ex-prisoner isn't without blame either though. Being a D-bag in character is just as bad as, if not worse than, being an D-bag in real life. He needs to tone down the jack-assery, i.e. don't poke fun at others' failures if you're not sure they'll take it well, and even then only a little.

As the DM you'd do well to talk to each of them seperately about their respective innappropriate behavior, and then together to work out something that can work for everyone.

"It's what my character would do," is an excuse, not a justification, and it's a poor one at that. Worse, it's trying to shift blame onto someone that doesn't even exist.

[TuggyNE]

"It's what my character would do," is an excuse, not a justification, and it's a poor one at that. Worse, it's trying to shift blame onto someone that doesn't even exist.

Well summarized.

[Gamer Girl]

There is a line between ''playing in character'' and ''playing a game with a group of people.'' And look, as much as you want to say your ''playing in character'', your really ''playing with a group of people''. And it's sort of a 4th wall thing: the player has to control the character, as the player is sitting at the table with the other players.

But, annoying people/players/characters are annoying. It's that simple. If you are always making fun or calling names or whatever...sooner or later someone won't like it. That is just the way people are. And that is why you don't go around annoying people. And more so you don't annoy tough, armed people(I would suggest not annoying an armed Marine, Cop or Bank guard, for example).

So you can ask the annoying prisoner to just tone it down. If him being annoying is disrupting the group, you need to step in.

Though I approve of letting the dwarf kill the prisoner, and I'd be happy to see that in the game(''Sorry Prisoner when you annoy fire you get burned'')


This reminds me of the dreaded Kender from Dragonlance. They are all cool and fun in the novels, but they will ruin a game in minutes. And the problem is the kender's are just so annoying. And while the kender player has tons of fun screwing everyone else over, the other players have no fun at all.

[theNater]

Assuming this is really in-character behavior, and not an out-of-character conflict spilling over into the game, one thing you can do is convince the characters to play nice.

The town guard recognizes that this is a teamwork or death situation; he may want to pull the dwarf aside and explicitly point that out. Just a little "I don't like that guy either, but we need all the help we can get or...zombies," could calm the dwarf down a bit.

On the other side, you have the good cleric there. It's important to remember that good doesn't just mean saving lives. There's a concern for the dignity of sentient beings required as well. When the prisoner pokes fun, he's attacking the dwarf's dignity; leaving the dwarf unable to reclaim it the way he thinks is appropriate(violence) is a mild form of torture. The cleric may wish to pull the prisoner aside for a bit of "There's some folks you can poke fun at, and some you can't. The dwarf is in the latter group. Please be kinder to him." The cleric might even wish to indicate a penalty for failing to live up to this. If the cleric whaps the prisoner over the head(for non-lethal damage) every time he insults the dwarf, it may satisfy the dwarf's desire for retribution in a relatively harmless way. Alternately, the cleric could threaten to refrain from healing the prisoner should he push the dwarf into attacking him, in hopes that the threat will scare the prisoner into line.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Deing antagonistic to the other players by saying "it's what my character would do" is always a terrible argument, you're really being antagonistic because it's what you choose for your character to do. This is really an out of game problem in which either one of the other players or the DM needs to say "please stop playing this character as such a **** because it's really annoying"

[Acanous]

Depending on how immersive and mature your group is, allowing PVP to take place can actually be the best thing to do in a case like this, with appropriate in-game consiquences for the fight.
Was it justa knock-out brawl? A fight to first blood? An honorable duel? A dirty, illegal fight? All of these would have consiquences upon the characters, both on how the other players see them, and on their reputations with the locals. If it ended in a death, it would assuredly be investigated. If that escaped prisoner is on the run from the legitimate authority, the dwarf may even collect a reward for taking him down.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depending on how immersive and mature your group is, allowing PVP to take place can actually be the best thing to do in a case like this, with appropriate in-game consiquences for the fight.
Was it justa knock-out brawl? A fight to first blood? An honorable duel? A dirty, illegal fight? All of these would have consiquences upon the characters, both on how the other players see them, and on their reputations with the locals. If it ended in a death, it would assuredly be investigated. If that escaped prisoner is on the run from the legitimate authority, the dwarf may even collect a reward for taking him down.

While that is true and appropriate for some groups, the OP's tone suggests that he doesn't think his group is one of them.

If I've misread him, then allowing things to take their natural course is a perfectly valid choice. In fact it's a valid option whether I've understood correctly or not.

If, however, he believes that this situation will spiral out of hand and spill into the players' relationships with one another, and feels as though he must take some action, he needs to realize that this is an out of character problem and that it can only be solved through rational discourse with his friends. That is assuming that this isn't a symptom of a deeper problem between his friends that is beyond his ability to solve.

TL;DR: whenever there's a problem, whether it's with D&D or not, the best solution is almost always to talk it out.



Unless the problem is bears. Then the solution is to run. Bears will freakin' eat you if you try to talk 'em down.

Sorry, I needed a burst of humor with all the weighty threads I've read recently.