PDA

View Full Version : Is conflicting with your own party acceptable roleplaying?



Grindle
2013-03-02, 05:07 PM
My previous character was a rigidly lawful cleric that on two occasions came into in-character conflict with the party. My character was Lawful Neutral, but was extremely obsessed with the concept of fairness.

The first time was when my party's ranger shot a druid who had helping us in the back, because she was leaving with the treasure, after we had helped her rescue her sister. He didn't try using Diplomacy or anything; it didn't occur to him. This clear violation of fairness angered my character, so I attacked him, and most of the rest of the party sided with him. The druid and her sister ended up dead.

Edit: I should probably make it clear that I was not trying to kill the ranger, like people seem to be assuming. Instead, I was talking to him and trying to persuade him to stop attacking the druid, and started attacking him to try to keep him from killing the druid.


The second time was while we were playing Ravenloft (the 3.5 module), and were dealing with a necromancer who wanted a fresh human tongue in return for giving us information. The other party members (including a good paladin) were prepared to go along with this and go cut out the tongue of some random villager, but my character was not okay with that, and attacked the necromancer. The paladin and a barbarian sided with me against the necromancer, and we forced him to agree to a less repulsive deal.

So, I'm asking, is conflicting with your own party acceptable roleplaying? Is what I did good roleplaying, or being a ****?

Edit: To clarify, this was entirely with the characters. None of the players were upset by it; at most people might have been annoyed. These two examples are also the only two times I can think of that this happened.

hamishspence
2013-03-02, 05:12 PM
Depends on the game- but thinking about what's best for the group dynamic is important as well:

Making the Tough Decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)


Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Fortuna
2013-03-02, 05:21 PM
I've actually recently quit a game I was enjoying over this very issue. Funnily enough, I was playing a cleric too. The party never came to blows over the issue, but scarce a session went by without my character starting some sort of argument over what was the right course of action.

In itself that wasn't problematic, and so long as all the conflict remains purely IC, and doesn't damage the party's ability to work together, I see no reason why it wouldn't be acceptable. The problem comes when you threaten to break up the party with IC conflict, or what's worse, let an IC dispute turn into an OOC argument. In either of those cases, it's a problem, and you need to work on stopping it - the Giant's advice can be helpful, but sometimes also difficult. Consider seeing if you can just take a new character.

RPGuru1331
2013-03-02, 05:25 PM
How much do the other players like dealing with it and how much do you like dealing with it? If everyone's having fun, it's fine. If nobody's enjoying it, or if only you are enjoying it, then you need to consider having your character change their mind, or changing characters out entirely.

TypoNinja
2013-03-02, 05:29 PM
The distinction that's important is if Characters are in conflict, or Players.

The former can work out well as long as everybody is on board for that, the latter is just plain bad.

I'm currently in a game where I'm a CN monstrous race, traveling with a LN Fighter, and a LG cleric. We've had some really hilarious "That's a BAD PLAN" chats, when the Lawful characters object to some of my proposed solutions.

"Why not? Everybody wins"
"Expect the sentry! No eating the sentries!"
"They taste good though"
"Only allowed to eat people who deserve it"
"Oh, fine"

Grindle
2013-03-02, 05:32 PM
To clarify, this was entirely with the characters. None of the players were upset by it, and everyone I've asked had as much fun as they normally did. At most people might have been slightly annoyed.

The two examples in the OP are also the only two times I can think of that this happened.

tensai_oni
2013-03-02, 05:32 PM
Sounds like the real problem here is that you play with Murder Hobos who are into the game for killing stuff and looting without care for things such as alignment or roleplaying.

RPGuru1331
2013-03-02, 05:59 PM
To clarify, this was entirely with the characters. None of the players were upset by it, and everyone I've asked had as much fun as they normally did. At most people might have been slightly annoyed
That doesn't quite fill me with confidence, but still. Why not ask, directly, how they felt about how it as players? IT's not going to hurt anything, after all, and it'll give you a better feel. And if you're right and everyone was fine with it, then continue wending along your merry way in game! No reason to change if everyone's having fun, after all.

Magni's Hammer
2013-03-02, 06:04 PM
Way I see it, your question can be answered as two separate topics:

1. Is conflicting with your own party acceptable roleplaying?

I would say yes. A group of adventurers doesn't have to agree on all courses of action, and it's interesting when you have arguments or debates. I would say that if the conflict becomes so great that characters come to sword blows over an issue, there had better be a good reason for them to stick together (if they do stick together) after the fighting is done. One thing that is not very good roleplaying is to have two adventurers duel into the negatives, then heal and go on adventuring as if nothing had happened (without good reason).

For example, I once watched a rather dysfunctional party fight each other and then inexplicably remain together (I was DM). The group was a large band of sellswords that had been hired to remove a goblin threat from trade roads; the characters didn't know each other very well and three members clashed frequently. A thief continually tried to steal from a wealthy knight, to the point that the knight attacked him to get his money back. But once the goblins attacked and after, the two forgot their argument and acted like it had never happened. There was another warrior that attacked the goblins with a savagery that made the other players squeamish. Even after the creatures were driven off, he continued to pursue them, stabbing each and every one. He even found the caves in their village where their women, children and elderly had hidden and killed all of them. The rest of the mercenaries were horrified, but didn't do anything at all. And after the carnage was over, they all went off as if nothing had happened. There, the lack of party conflict was what broke the roleplaying.

2. Is what the cleric did (in your examples) good roleplaying?

I would say yes to the both of them. I will grant that, in the first example, if you help another person on a potentially risky mission and they reward you by running off with your money, that could make you justifiably angry. But to kill them (by shooting them in the back) is rather overboard, and I could see a good cleric attacking a ranger that did that. I would like to know whether the adventurers stayed together after that.

The second example seems perfectly normal roleplaying. A necromancer that demands a human tongue for vital information (for no reason, I assume, beyond his own amusement) is an awful person and a good cleric would probably try to get the information out another way.

Grindle
2013-03-02, 06:17 PM
I would like to know whether the adventurers stayed together after that.

None of the adventurers were seriously injured; basically, the cleric lectured the ranger/other party members for a while, but the party stayed together.

Synovia
2013-03-02, 06:19 PM
Sounds like the real problem here is that you play with Murder Hobos who are into the game for killing stuff and looting without care for things such as alignment or roleplaying.

It sounds to me like each character has a different set of rules for murder-hobo-ness. In the first example, his LG character shot somebody in the back without even trying to diffuse the situation. That sounds totally out of alignment to me.

Lawful, yeah (if he felt it was unfair and a betrayal, sure), but good? Not so much.

Grindle
2013-03-02, 06:39 PM
It sounds to me like each character has a different set of rules for murder-hobo-ness. In the first example, his LG character shot somebody in the back without even trying to diffuse the situation. That sounds totally out of alignment to me.

Lawful, yeah (if he felt it was unfair and a betrayal, sure), but good? Not so much.

I never said my cleric was good. I should have made this clearer earlier, but my character was Lawful Neutral, and was just really obsessed with fairness.

Rhynn
2013-03-02, 06:52 PM
So, I'm asking, is conflicting with your own party acceptable roleplaying? Is what I did good roleplaying, or being a ****?

Do you mean PVP or conflicting? They're not the same.

PVP can be fine, but generally only if it was agreed previously that it is cool. Otherwise, it's a no-no. Conflicting is fine, though - roleplaying disagreements.

Also, if your character is willing to attack party members on the spot, it sounds like it's not much of a party.

The essay hamishpence linked is pure gold.

Grindle
2013-03-02, 10:01 PM
Also, if your character is willing to attack party members on the spot, it sounds like it's not much of a party.


I didn't start this thread for people to insult my party based on two out-of-context instances. I was asking people what they thought of a particular type of behavior, and I made that clear in my OP.

ArcturusV
2013-03-02, 10:15 PM
Well, the idea of merely conflicting with your party is fine. I mean you're anywhere from 2-9 people or what not. Even if you're friends IC there's going to be differences. But... the examples you cited are not good examples of "proper" conflict within the party as I'd think of.

A better way to achieve the same result would be to have that behavior simmer. You realize that your party mostly agrees with the Ranger, or that you still need the Ranger and everyone else to get what you want (To the city, further adventures, vanquishing a villain, etc). But you're plotting in the back of your mind. Rather than draw weapons and throw down you just talk to others behind the ranger's back, get a feel for where the party lies on this. "Hey... you remember when Torvan just iced that Druid, shot him right in the back?" and you get answers like "Oh yeah, that was funny!" or "Quick thinking, bastard was about to escape with our loot"... well then you know your party is mostly irredeemable. In the meantime you continue to try to use them to accomplish your own Ethos as a Lawful Good cleric, point them towards Evil, etc.

But meanwhile be building up for a moment where, when the campaign ends, you are in a position to make sure your teammates pay for their evil. Then again as a high level cleric and talking about a ranger, it should be quite easy to ensure that at higher levers, end game, you can put the guy down. Something on your lips like, "You did a great service to Good, killing villains as you did. But your heart is black and you are unrepentant. For this, you have no place in the new, peaceful world. Now die."

Since you're doing this at the end of the campaign, the PvP aspect doesn't exactly have a huge fallout. And can (based on my experiences) make the group really hunger for a sequel campaign.

celtois
2013-03-02, 10:16 PM
I think it really depends on your group's expectations as to if within party conflict is acceptable.

My example: I was at a meetup, with a one shot character, he was a mercenary fellow and his motivation was gold, and nothing but gold. We arrive in a room, where an evil family member of one of the other party members are. This evil family member goes on to ask his sister to turn on the party and let him go free. She refuses. My character asks if he's willing to pay him, to defend him from the party. He says yes.

Party decides immediately after to attack.

My character turns around, and nearly one shots the cleric. The session ended there, and some of the less moderate players were calling for my head (One guy threatened to strangle me. (He's always been a bit unstable though)), the more moderate players just thought I shouldn't have done what I done, and said my actions where rude, and I shouldn't play a mercenary character, I should be required to have motivations that tie me to the party

To which I pointed out, that I gave them the opportunity to diffuse the conflict, all they had to do was outbid the villain for his services.

I haven't played D&D 3.5 since.

Edit: The Moral of the story is, while, in party conflict can be fine in some groups it depends on the social contract of your group. In my case, it ruined the group's enjoyment, and spoiled my desire to play D&D with them ever again. (Because we have different priorities, however I have since realized that I'm not overly fond of 3.5 as a whole.)

Grindle
2013-03-02, 10:24 PM
I should probably make it clear that in the first example, I was not trying to kill the ranger, like people seem to be assuming. Instead, I was talking to him and trying to persuade him to stop attacking the druid, and started attacking him to try to keep him from killing the druid.

valadil
2013-03-02, 10:38 PM
So, I'm asking, is conflicting with your own party acceptable roleplaying? Is what I did good roleplaying, or being a ****?


Having a conflict with the rest of your party is fine. How you handle it determines if you're being a jerk or not.

Your first post wasn't terribly informative. This one helped though.


Instead, I was talking to him and trying to persuade him to stop attacking the druid, and started attacking him to try to keep him from killing the druid.

What I was afraid of was "the ranger disagrees with me. I should kill him." That's poor roleplaying. You can disagree with your party without it coming to blows. I'm glad to see you tried to talk to the other PC before attacking him. It's hard to form much of an opinion about whether this was good roleplaying or just random murder without knowing the full conversation though.

turkey901
2013-03-02, 10:42 PM
My view is slightly skewed on this since RPG's by their nature generally exist in a "might is right" world where policing is virtually non existent and PC's face mortal danger all the time. Your group ( whom I assume had been together for several weeks if not months ) was doing a favor for this Druid, who then tried to bolt with some of spoils of war. The Ranger tried to kill her, without calling out a warning, attempting subdual, or tackling. Yeah I would defiantly see that kind of thing raising an eyebrow with anyone of the Good side of the scale. Your character probably should have tackled or gone for subdual, but I would argue in the heat of the moment he reacted to try and save a life he didn't feel was forfeit.

As for the second one, not even a question about it. Assuming you play a character with more than just stats then they have a personality of their own. To give an example if you needed to break into a house to find something ( clue/evidence/hostage) and you had a Paladin in the group, I would imagine they would have objections to unlawful entry. You would have to convince them that it is the right course of action. Maybe you suspect the guards are on the take so you can't go to them, the hypothetical details are irrelevant but assume you convince him, he would probably provide caveats; No looting at all, if the owner is guilty then his estate would fall to his heir. Should you find nothing you all must report your crime to the constabulary and plead your case.

The point is if you built a character with limits and try to adhere to them (within reason) that's great. If you find yourself surrounded with murder-hobos then you either have to lose the morals or buckle up and try to be the Jiminy Cricket to the group.

Synovia
2013-03-02, 11:00 PM
I never said my cleric was good. I should have made this clearer earlier, but my character was Lawful Neutral, and was just really obsessed with fairness.

My bad. Lawful Neutral might work with that... although I don't know that shooting someone in the back is fair.

Frathe
2013-03-02, 11:01 PM
My bad. Lawful Neutral might work with that... although I don't know that shooting someone in the back is fair.What? He (the cleric, = Grindle = the OP) didn't shoot anyone in the back. The ranger (who is me, incidentally) did.

Terazul
2013-03-03, 01:16 AM
Well done interparty conflict is always acceptable, IMO. Most characters I make actually tend to always have some built-in form of possible conflict; Usually not stuff that is directly opposed to the goals of the party, but I've found over the years I tend to include things such as previous allegiances to organizations, or associations with certain individuals in the setting when it comes to backstory for characters. I always find "my allegiance is to the party of these (often) random individuals and nothing else" groups/characters to be a little... odd, unless it's a close-knit group that grew up together or something.

But yeah, your two examples there seem fine really. Two of the most important things for IPC are Player Expectations, and Player Maturity; In one of the above examples with celtois' story involving the mercenary and his play group, both the expectations of the group were different, and judging from the strangle threats that followed, the maturity wasn't too high either. So what works for your group may not work for another one. Easiest way to check if things are "ok" is to talk about it with the others. If the most someone comes out of it with is mild annoyance that things didn't go the way they wanted it to, then that's probably ok. Varies from person to person, though.

Frathe
2013-03-03, 02:10 AM
But yeah, your two examples there seem fine really. Two of the most important things for IPC are Player Expectations, and Player Maturity; In one of the above examples with the mercenary, both the expectations of the group were different, and judging from the strangle threats that followed, the maturity wasn't too high either. Easiest way to check if things are "ok" is to talk about it with the others. If the most someone comes out of it with is mild annoyance that things didn't go the way they wanted it to, then that's probably ok. Varies from person to person, though.What strangle threats? :smallconfused: With maturity, though, the group was all teenage males in the 14-16 range (I forget exactly how long ago this was).

Terazul
2013-03-03, 02:29 AM
What strangle threats? :smallconfused: With maturity, though, the group was all teenage males in the 14-16 range (I forget exactly how long ago this was).

In celtois' story. With the mercenary, hence why I said that :smalltongue: I'll clarify my post though. Eh, I have long since divorced age with maturity, but as I said before, your group seemed pretty fine with that conflict.

Frathe
2013-03-03, 02:33 AM
In celtois' story. With the mercenary, hence why I said that :smalltongue: I'll clarify my post though. Eh, I have long since divorced age with maturity, but as I said before, your group seemed pretty fine with that conflict.My mistake. By "mercenary" I thought you just meant the person who tried to leave with all the treasure. That makes a lot more sense (probably should've read earlier in the thread before responding like that).

Cerlis
2013-03-03, 09:28 AM
I dont mean any offense but i think the problem is you dialed up your intervention to 10, when it should have at least started with a 3 and escalated to at most a 8.

Inter-party conflict often drives a game. One of the best parties is the Heroes of the Lance from Dragonlance. You had a wide range of alignment. THe group was constantly stifling the "thieving" halfing, using the Knights sense of honor to get past his sense of honor (such as when they got him to run away by saying that his need to protect a lady was greater than his need to not run from battle), and all knew that the mage was only their ally out of necessity and might abandon them (or worse) at any moment (and thats what he ended up doing).
It helps bring up the character of your characters, creates dilemas and tests each characters convictions. In my opinion on his path to lvl 20 a good cleric or Paladin should be forced to take an Atonement spell at least twice (or at least die for his convictions). Heroes make sacrifices and giving into what the party NEEDS even when it conflicts with your OWN need makes for a good party. Otherwise they are just heroes who happen to be fighting shoulder to shoulder.

In the first example your first act should have been to disarm him, and failing that you could have grabbed him and wrestled him to the ground. If you didnt think you could do that, there is always putting yourself between them and their target. Thus not only forcing them to backstab a former ally but also risk hurting a current ally. This makes HIM the unreasonable one if he continues. Once you made your intention clear you could have suggested going after her, assuming she went off with the treasure cus she STOLE it. If its hers then that was just him being a Murder Hobo and being greedy. Something you could have pointed out.

In the second situation, well naturally you might have ended up having to threaten him but attacking him outright isnt a good idea. Everything is clearer in hindsight, but still for the future this incident is proof that the DM's PC's can mostly be reasoned with. The paladin should get slapped but i think that if you had -no other alternative- one of the party (such as yourself) could have volunteered to provide the tongue. only time this wouldnt be "ideal" is if its a low magic campagin and you might not be able to regenerate that tongue anytime soon.

of course, simply bargaining with the necromancer , even if aggressively, is much better than attacking an innocent.


-----

if its any consolation, i put the pressure on you because you where obviously the only reasonable person there. The only problem was your technique ;)

GungHo
2013-03-04, 09:30 AM
Occasionally? Sure. Characters have different motivations and they'll argue about things like where the party is going, how they divide treasure, and what their primary strategy should be to beat the big boss.

All the time? That's painful. I'd ask the players why they think their characters would tolerate each other. Eventually I'd offer a heroic (or unheroic) death for the pain in the ass and request a re-roll for a more chill personality.

All the time and the same player for every character he/she generates? I'd ask the player why he's doing that because that gets old real quick.

nedz
2013-03-04, 10:19 AM
Conflict is the root of drama, so this is generally a good thing.
I think that it makes the roleplay better, so long as it has IC context and meaning.

Doing it all of the time could get tedious fast, so don't be that guy.

elliott20
2013-03-04, 01:58 PM
In certain systems, inter-party conflict is not only expected, it is encouraged. i.e. Burning Wheel have mechanics for handling social conflicts and a large part of the drama can come from direct player vs. player conflict.

Bulhakov
2013-03-05, 04:42 PM
While in-party conflict can really make for fun games and passionate roleplaying, my main advice is to remember that you're friends first, characters second.

Being an a**hole to your friend or friends cannot be excused by "but this is what my character would do". I know very few players who can keep completely emotionally detached from what their characters do, and most will carry a grudge outside of the game.

Surprise is also an important factor and knowing what to expect can significantly reduce tension between players. Make sure you and your friends clear up important moral issues ahead of time, so you're not trapped in an unpleasant situation when for example a party member suddenly decides to murder an NPC.

Mechanize
2013-03-05, 06:42 PM
Depends on the group of players. Any group of mature people who can roll play even slightly usually enjoy a little bit of conflict. A party that agrees on everything gets old and very boring. Thought, someone playing overly lawful good or overly chaotic evil is annoying though, and extremely unrealistic. Even in our own society those extreme types of personalities are rare.

I think it is important for a good game to have varying personalities, a little bit of disagreement and some conflicting goals. It makes the adventure more unique.

Falconer
2013-03-05, 07:24 PM
Conflict in my group is acceptable, and even encouraged. All of us, players and DM, are working on a story together, and it's conflict that makes the plot. Once or twice we've even had characters who have had such a conflict that half the group split and tried to kill each other (and more or less succeeded). A few times characters have suddenly turned on everyone else and even run off to join the Big Bad. These were some of the best campaigns I've played.

The key to managing inter party conflict, and having an awesome D&D campaign in general, is pretty simple: make each other look good, gamewise. This doesn't mean characters can't fight, or even kill each other, it means making sure everyone else is having fun. If everyone is looking out for everyone else and making sure nobody gets the short end of the stick, everyone is taken care of. In the end, it's not about who has got the most optimized build, or whose character got to bang the king's gorgeous daughter and rule the kingdom. It's about telling a cool story with cool characters who did cool things, because telling a cool story is Fun.*


*Also, you can then proceed to brag about that cool story to people on the internet, which is also Fun.

elliott20
2013-03-05, 07:41 PM
Conflict in my group is acceptable, and even encouraged. All of us, players and DM, are working on a story together, and it's conflict that makes the plot. Once or twice we've even had characters who have had such a conflict that half the group split and tried to kill each other (and more or less succeeded). A few times characters have suddenly turned on everyone else and even run off to join the Big Bad. These were some of the best campaigns I've played.

The key to managing inter party conflict, and having an awesome D&D campaign in general, is pretty simple: make each other look good, gamewise. This doesn't mean characters can't fight, or even kill each other, it means making sure everyone else is having fun. If everyone is looking out for everyone else and making sure nobody gets the short end of the stick, everyone is taken care of. In the end, it's not about who has got the most optimized build, or whose character got to bang the king's gorgeous daughter and rule the kingdom. It's about telling a cool story with cool characters who did cool things, because telling a cool story is Fun.*


*Also, you can then proceed to brag about that cool story to people on the internet, which is also Fun.

for exhibit A of this, watch the D&D community episode

Zeful
2013-03-05, 10:49 PM
Yes. It just needs to be handled well. A party that does not fight with itself is one that is one bad day away from just falling apart. The problem is that players generally don't talk to each other before hand and so come into this blind. I've never had enough friends to do this (in that I have no friends), but I always wanted to do a session proper, and get the players to talk about what kind of characters they wanted to play, beyond class or race; goals, mindset, personality, family and their relationship with them. Have the first session be mostly brainstorming about the coming game. Not in any crazy depth, but "this is the character I want to play, this is the kind of world I want to run in" kind of stuff.

Amaril
2013-03-05, 11:03 PM
for exhibit A of this, watch the D&D community episode

My favorite :smallbiggrin: Seriously, it's awesome, go watch it (though they play fast and loose with the rules in some pretty major ways).

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-06, 12:53 AM
I'm probably something of an exceptional GM, because I prefer for characters to split their ways if they can't make up their differences. I've run the game for seven characters separated to four groups, for example. If characters can't logically act together, well, they should not act together at all.

Of course, character conflict is not the same as player conflict. Two characters being constantly at each others' necks can be pretty fun, two players being constantly at each other's necks is tiresome.

Madeiner
2013-03-06, 05:36 AM
I think it really depends on your group's expectations as to if within party conflict is acceptable.

My example: I was at a meetup, with a one shot character, he was a mercenary fellow and his motivation was gold, and nothing but gold. We arrive in a room, where an evil family member of one of the other party members are. This evil family member goes on to ask his sister to turn on the party and let him go free. She refuses. My character asks if he's willing to pay him, to defend him from the party. He says yes.

Party decides immediately after to attack.

My character turns around, and nearly one shots the cleric. The session ended there

Sorry but i am with the other players here.
You made a mercenary PC that the moment someone offers him money and the party doesn't offer more turns on the party.
Think about it. You wouldn't want someone like that in your party, even removing the "attacking the party" bit.

I think people think their PCs are some godlike creatures that are different to every other just because they are playing it.
Would you accept an NPC that you had to pay to keep with you, that is the same level as you, and can turn on you the moment you don't offer more money to him than your enemy does?

You would never keep an NPC like that around. Your PC should never even have gotten into the party if the others knew he was like that.

Yes, ok, mercenary and all. This still doesn't make your character the special person that everyone has to pay to keep around. The party should just have kicked you if you insisted on being paid for your services.