PDA

View Full Version : DM Help PvP: Don't we just love it!



EvilCookie
2015-12-27, 08:24 PM
We are playing a homebrew world and there are currently 3 PCs:

An ex marauder Water Priest, Lawful Good, A healer, general nice guy with a fierce hate for everything evil or Hell-related (His whole class is built around that)
A power-and-knowledge-hungry Mage, Lawful Neutral, Coming from a noble elf family, a smug ass, and the priest's friend (also, my character)
A mercenary swordmaster, True Neutral, Currently in the service of the elf, quite loyal and would put his life on the line for him (he is even better than a puppy)

As a party we have functioned quite well, and having a Lawful-Powerhungry, a Neutral-Greedy, and a Goody-Twoshooey makes the roleplay fun and the loot easy to divide.

Since we would actually like to have a party of four, we are getting a new player (yay, spreading the love)

The only problem is the new player would like to play an Occultist; a class leaning strongly towards evil, and with some of the features being Blood magic, necromancy, summoning demons and horrors, and based around insanity and fear spells.

At our last meeting we talked about getting a new player, and how to make it easier for him to blend in and not feel weird the first couple of times.
The problem is, the priest actually plans on killing him if he takes the occultist class, and doesn't give him a VERY good reason IC why he shouldn't (cant blame him). Its kinda similar to a paladin reacting to a necromancer being added to the party. The DM has given a green light on PvP if its based of off IC interaction, but i kinda feel it might leave a sour taste for the new guy.

So, any advice on roleplay advice that would make coexistence in a party possible (not just for this specific scenario, but how do you rp an evil char in a good party), and any advice how to make his character dying perhaps a fun or interesting for him (i will suggest to our DM putting him as a major villain later, trying to kill the party that almost killed him or something along the lines).

Segev
2015-12-27, 08:28 PM
Is this the PF Occultist, or something else? The PF Occultist needn't be "evil" at all.


It is the responsibility of a player bringing in a new PC to make that PC fit in with the group. If he'd cause irreconcilable conflict with an existing PC, he should bring in something else.

EvilCookie
2015-12-27, 08:38 PM
Sadly, its not the PF occultist, all the classes are completely homebrew, mostly only the basic mechanics of the dnd/PF are left

I kinda agree with PC needing to fit the party (well i love to be a special snowflake and get the opposite aligned character every so often, but dont really mind him/her getting killed), but since his is a first time player, and he didnt really want other classes I am kinda torn between acting wierdly IC (since my character is probably the strongest, and the swordsman will follow me, i can make them cooperate by force) but i dont really want to do that, or risking losing a new player, and giving him the wrong impression of TTRPGs

For me personaly, getting characters killed, even through combat is usually not a nice experience but not something tragic (at least some of them make good stories :D)

Grim Portent
2015-12-27, 08:47 PM
You could ask the GM, the Priest and the new guy to sit down together and sort out a way to excuse the new guys evil methodology that the Priest would accept IC before the first session with the new PC. They can hash all the drama out before hand OOC and work out a way around it for when dice hit the table.

Mr.Moron
2015-12-27, 08:49 PM
This doesn't end without somebody getting salty. You just need to choose the reason why someone is salty


New player gets told he can't play cultist
Priest player gets asked to just let it go.
New player gets his character killed.


I think of the three, the first option generates the least amount of salt for the least amount of people.

Mr Beer
2015-12-27, 08:57 PM
First time player? GM explains it's not going to work and why. Pick something that fits the group. If the player can't get the idea that joining a new group involves fitting around them and not vice versa, that is someone you don't want to associate with, let alone RPG with.

Terrador
2015-12-27, 09:14 PM
This doesn't end without somebody getting salty. You just need to choose the reason why someone is salty


New player gets told he can't play cultist
Priest player gets asked to just let it go.
New player gets his character killed.


I think of the three, the first option generates the least amount of salt for the least amount of people.
This is a holy post, and I second it. The kill-on-sight attitude and any potential stubbornness on the part of the Occultist player are both problems, but the Priest player does have precedence. Even though PvP should be worked around as hard as possible (remember that metagaming for the fun of everyone is a thing that can be, should be, and is done, especially with situations just like this), it is totally reasonable to ask the Occultist to not come in and create a party alignment predicament.

Geddy2112
2015-12-27, 11:23 PM
I think both the priest and occultist are in the wrong here.

A lawful good character would kill on sight an occultist? Sure, the class leans towards evil but is the player planning to be openly evil aligned and openly act evil? Its pretty evil to profile others and kill them if you think they are evil, and the "you detect as evil therefore die" is not exactly good. The priest has every right to be wary, suspicious, and let this new person wanting to join the adventuring trio that we are not a bunch of murderhobos, and that we generally try to stay on the side of law and good.

The occultist is, on the other hand, bringing a character into a game that does not work with the party, which should never ever be allowed. Since they are new, they probably don't understand how their actions are going to strain the group dynamic. It is always the responsibility of the player bringing in a new character to fit the party. It would be just as wrong if the new player wanted to bring a lawful good priest into the game, hellbent on killing the evil occultist in the party.

I think both of the players should make concessions- the priest should give everyone he meets a chance, but let the player and character know that he won't stand for hell or evil. Likewise, the occultist needs to accept he is bringing in a build that potentially challenges the priest's character concept, and that if he starts being evil he is going to get killed. If both players cant agree to this and not have hurt feelings,then the new player needs to bring in something different. If this is homebrew anyways, why not take out some of the demon summoning and more evilish things?

Quertus
2015-12-27, 11:34 PM
So, any advice on roleplay advice that would make coexistence in a party possible (not just for this specific scenario, but how do you rp an evil char in a good party)

I personally love playing necromancers. Playing an evil character in a good party can be tricky, or really easy, depending. Usually, my evil characters are much more loyal to the party than most other party members are, and usually have that loyalty returned. Easy. And better than a puppy.

However, alignment aside, you appear to have two incompatible character concepts: the demon-hater and the demon summoner.

I adventured with that party (ok, it was the undead hunter and the undead master, same idea). The DM used fiat to make it work. The players didn't usually get along to begin with, and it usually spilled over into their characters, so, this time, before they even made their characters, the DM said that they were old friends who had lost touch, and were meeting up again for the first time in years. When they created opposed character concepts, the DM (and the rest of us) face palmed, and the DM used fiat to say that the undead hunter was unable to notice that the undead created by the undead master were undead. Although it strained credibility, it did keep the game from devolving into PvP.

Honestly, I suspect that you would need a similar level of divine intervention to make these two characters compatible.

goto124
2015-12-28, 12:22 AM
- Ask the new player to pick a different class?
- Let the new player play a refluffed version of the same class, if it's really desired to play the mechanics of the occulist?

MrNobody
2015-12-28, 07:45 AM
What about keeping the occultist mechanics (fear, debuff, summoning things) but asking the player to refluff his PC converting it on the good side?

Instead of summoning horrors from the Abyss it could call forth friends from Celestia, his fear effect could be more close to the aura of menace of an archon than to necromantic effects... and Ruins and afflictions in BOED has shown that even exalted character can do ability damage!
With a little work on the DM side you could easily replace undead servants with Deathless.

This could be a great change on the side of roleplay but if the player is more interested in the mechanical side it could be an easy way out!

Socratov
2015-12-28, 08:02 AM
What about keeping the occultist mechanics (fear, debuff, summoning things) but asking the player to refluff his PC converting it on the good side?

Instead of summoning horrors from the Abyss it could call forth friends from Celestia, his fear effect could be more close to the aura of menace of an archon than to necromantic effects... and Ruins and afflictions in BOED has shown that even exalted character can do ability damage!
With a little work on the DM side you could easily replace undead servants with Deathless.

This could be a great change on the side of roleplay but if the player is more interested in the mechanical side it could be an easy way out!

this, or maybe treat the occultist like the Malconvoker who almost by definition, fights fire with fire. It's a bit how using hellfire doesn't require you to be evil, or even to constitute as an evil act according to the FCII. Play it out like the priest losing his ****, while the occustist will try and convince him the occultist is not evil as he uses his stuff for entirely the right reasons.

Faily
2015-12-28, 08:26 AM
What about keeping the occultist mechanics (fear, debuff, summoning things) but asking the player to refluff his PC converting it on the good side?

Instead of summoning horrors from the Abyss it could call forth friends from Celestia, his fear effect could be more close to the aura of menace of an archon than to necromantic effects... and Ruins and afflictions in BOED has shown that even exalted character can do ability damage!
With a little work on the DM side you could easily replace undead servants with Deathless.

This could be a great change on the side of roleplay but if the player is more interested in the mechanical side it could be an easy way out!


If the player absolutely does not want to choose a new class, then this is the way to go, imo.

Sure, it is giving one player precedent over another, but in this case I do want to say "he was here first and is already established in the party". Making a character that directly conflicts with another character's philosophy and beliefs is douchey. Don't be a douche.

Douche
2015-12-28, 11:30 AM
Tell the occultist, if he absolutely must play a necromancer-type dude, to flavor it as "understanding the darkness" in order to combat it. Fight fire with fire, ya know? Sorta like the demon hunters from Warcraft - they harness demon magic in order to fight them. They are shunned by their own society for the corrupting influence they willfully harness, but they are doing it with altruistic hopes: to be able to protect their people and stop the demons from invading their world... That way, he's not "evil" he's just "misunderstood" lololol - as long as he doesn't go murdering civilians, at least.



Otherwise, i dunno, explain to him that that type of character won't mesh with the party dynamic. You can have the coolest concept in the world, but it's not gonna go anywhere if the party has no reason to keep you around... In one of my games, 3 of us are in a chaotic neutral thieves guild and 1 guy chose to be a lawful good patsy to the keepers of order (or whatever). It's also set in the present day, which is important cuz we have phones... We gave him several chances, and last week I called him (in character) to join us when we got a job to steal an artifact, under the condition that he be cool about it (the other two characters in the party didn't even want me to invite him, but I gave the reasoning that he was good to have in a fight - ooc I didn't want the guy to do nothing all session or make the DM shoehorn him in somehow, lol). When we dispatched all the foes and got the artifact, he grabbed it and said he was returning it to the lawful good faction. I was all "Dude, I said you had to be cool or I wasn't gonna call you anymore"...

Anyway, I feel like I'm getting long-winded here, point being, his character didn't make any sense to be in our group. He kept wanting to do the lawful stupid archetype, while we were all thieves. He ended up handing over the axe, but we didn't have any reason to invite him on any more missions. He realized that on his own and retired the character, and said he's rolling a new one for this weeks game.

Madeiner
2015-12-28, 12:28 PM
I agree with all the above, and if the DM does not want PvP, to just say, in addition to what has been said before:

If PvP happens, and somebody dies, then all the characters involved must be retired and those still alive become NPCs.
I guess the priest player will then find a lot of reasons to not kill the other character, and it will also prevent ganging up on the new guy (not involved = not retired)

I still believe other solutions are better.

Âmesang
2015-12-28, 12:50 PM
My longest running character was chaotic evil — totally vain, conceited, self-centered, proud, the center of her own world, yada yada. "How can something be semi-perfect? Either you're perfect or you're not me." That type. :smalltongue: Being a pure-blooded Suel you could say she followed the doctrine of the Scarlet Brotherhood, except instead of working towards the glory of a new Suel Imperium she was working towards her own glory… 'cause she's the only one that matters, naturally.

However, just 'cause I (and Wizards' online alignment test) saw her as chaotic evil doesn't mean she had to kick puppies or sucker punch babies; after all, the best way to go through life is by having as few enemies as possible, and working against the overall interests of the party (saving the town/country/world) would only lead to having more enemies gunning for her, no? So she works with the party, buffing her allies, debilitating their enemies, and otherwise acting the part of the beneficent noble so as to keep people on her side… and to allow her meatshields friends to draw enemy attacks away from her to stay healthy and strong so as to more easily take over save the world.* I'd say it's pretty simple (and fun!) to play a character who acts friendly and helpful to everyone around her while, deep down, thinking them as nothing more than tools and pawns for her schemes (being trained in Bluff certainly helps, I'd imagine).

I guess I just see alignment as not just action but attitude and personality; the (subtle?) difference between "being good for goodness' sake" and "being good because you're expecting a reward out of doing so." The results might be the same, but the intent behind the actions necessarily aren't, and a foul intent might overshadow the good outcome.

…granted, my character rarely had the opportunity to create undead or summon dæmons 'cause the players themselves weren't too keen on players controlling much more than their own character and a familiar/animal companion/special mount, since it could draw attention away from each other… and I can understand that. I guess that's leading me to picture the occultist taking command of fiends and turning 'em on each other "for the greater good." A good cleric should enjoy watching evil destroy itself, no?


Tell the occultist, if he absolutely must play a necromancer-type dude, to flavor it as "understanding the darkness" in order to combat it.
Somewhere I have notes for a true neutral necromancer I'd like to play sometime; basically a wizard trying to discover the nature of life and death — the cleric might seek to save good people from death, but this wizard wants to know why people die at all. A necromancer with a stereotypical scientific mindset, I guess.

*(Being chaotic I doubt she'd really care about taking over the world, just gaining as much "power" as possible — to become the first Mage of Power since the fall of the Suel Imperium over a thousand years prior. Otherwise she should easily be able to use her vast magical and alchemical resources to lead a comfortable and decadent lifestyle as one of the uppercrust. Like my necromancer idea it basically boils down to behaving and working with the party simply 'cause its in one's best interests — allows for more easily obtained long-term goals instead of betraying the party for something potentially short-term.)

Pex
2015-12-28, 02:34 PM
The new player needs to play a different character. He can still play an occultist, just not a demon-loving evil one. He's the new guy joining an established group. It's his responsibility to have his character fit. The other players do not have to adjust their characters to his.

The priest player may be overreacting, but that overreaction is the point. The party works as a coherent team. The new player wants to bring in a character that by its nature is antagonistic to the party make-up. The priest player does not want to lose the comfortable atmosphere that already exists.

New player needs a new character.

I remember playing a paladin in a group that also had a good ranger. A new player wanted to join, a cleric of a deity about poison and disease, not to cure, to spread around. The player knew a paladin and ranger were in the party. The party rejected his character. The player was welcomed to create a new character. He refused and never joined the group.

HeadAcheron
2015-12-28, 07:30 PM
I've never played a game myself, but I have read a lot of roleplayingtips.com and similar sites, and the favorite tip that I've found is: when one player decided that hir character will make an aggressive move (attack, bluff, theft) against another PC, then the target character's player decides what happens (does it work or not, does the target character notice or not...).

veti
2015-12-28, 08:26 PM
I second "get the new player to pick something else". It's on them to fit in with the group, not vice-versa.

But if the guy is really wedded to this Occultist idea (and personally I'd see that as a red flag in itself, that he's never played before but he's conceived a strong wish for this of all classes... but if you're determined to add him in despite all that, then...) does it have to be played as "evil"?

Could they be using dark forces to fight some real, much more serious evil?
Could they be "investigating" dark forces, on behalf of an unimpeachably good patron?
Could they be a "fallen" servant of such a patron, who has hopes of rehabilitating them if they can direct their talents towards the right ends?
Could they be a defector from the Enemy, whom the party's patron wants to "turn" properly?

That the Water Priest is Lawful is a helpful thing, because it means he'll take orders. If his superiors downright order him not to kill the new guy, then he'll respect that. And if they make him responsible for guiding the new character in his quest towards rehabilitation, then he should - ideally - jump at the RP opportunity.

Lord Torath
2015-12-29, 09:48 AM
I think the two best options I've seen here, are:
1) New guy creates a different character with a non-evil class (as defined by the GM's homebrew rules).
2) Re-fluff the Occultist class (for this one specific character) to be bright and good and sunny instead of dark and evil.

If this new player is new to RPGing, it's important to start him off right, and that means he needs to know that RPGs are cooperative games*, where the players work together to achieve their goals. Teach him this, and he'll be a much better player in the future.

*with a few notable exceptions.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 09:54 AM
I second "get the new player to pick something else". It's on them to fit in with the group, not vice-versa...

I don't know, I think that forcing somebody to play something they don't want, is kind of counterproductive. I think that instead finding some way to fit in what they do want. Maybe have a plot-based reason for the other players not to kill him.


I think the two best options I've seen here, are:
1) New guy creates a different character with a non-evil class (as defined by the GM's homebrew rules).
2) Re-fluff the Occultist class (for this one specific character) to be bright and good and sunny instead of dark and evil.

If this new player is new to RPGing, it's important to start him off right, and that means he needs to know that RPGs are cooperative games*, where the players work together to achieve their goals. Teach him this, and he'll be a much better player in the future.

*with a few notable exceptions.

I disagree with both. Changing intrinsic fluff to a class, may alter the way to play. And the other restricts player options unnecessarily. The problem is one of RP, fixing it with mechanics is just going to be clunky, and it's going to breed resentment. Maybe introduce a roleplay reason why the Water Cleric can't kill our Occultist, maybe the Occultist is too valuable, or friends with his supervisor, or he needs to keep him alive (because prophecy, or whatever). That would be what I would attempt.

Socratov
2015-12-29, 10:11 AM
I don't know, I think that forcing somebody to play something they don't want, is kind of counterproductive. I think that instead finding some way to fit in what they do want. Maybe have a plot-based reason for the other players not to kill him.



I disagree with both. Changing intrinsic fluff to a class, may alter the way to play. And the other restricts player options unnecessarily. The problem is one of RP, fixing it with mechanics is just going to be clunky, and it's going to breed resentment. Maybe introduce a roleplay reason why the Water Cleric can't kill our Occultist, maybe the Occultist is too valuable, or friends with his supervisor, or he needs to keep him alive (because prophecy, or whatever). That would be what I would attempt.

if everyone just started I would tell you you're right. However, this is a player that enters along the way and thus it'sup to him to make a character that fits the party (to some extent) and doe snot need the DM to jump through hoops just to introduce him. If you, at this point being along the way, require plotarmour (what else is a plot reason to te be killed on sight) to just get into the party You're not helping anyone and creating an imbalance within the group. Becuase now you don't have a party member, but a special snowflake that is even more special then the rest of the players. If you don't figure a way to put forth plor armour, you can count on, if the occultist uses his classfeatures, will antagonise the cleric resulting in yet again PvP.

TL;DR - If you can't fit into an already exiting party, don't bother playing since you will actually wreck the campaign faste then you can say PvP. If you enter an already existing party, it's up to you to make the fit.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 10:11 AM
There is also the point that the Priest is Lawful Good. Unless he plans on throwing the lawful straight out the window he needs to have a legitimate, lawful reason to execute him. Especially if the occultist is willing to work with them.

I've played a LE Cleric with a Paladin using that same mechanic.

"You are evil and"
"What have I done?"
"Excuse me?"
"I am a cleric of an established church in these lands and have broken no laws of this land. By what right do you judge me?"
"You have performed an evil act by raising the dead and"
"That is not disallowed by my church or my kingdom. You have come into a kingdom I am a law-abiding citizen of and you have no right to draw sword against me. I would however be interested in hearing about what faith you apparently uphold and see if we might come to some discussion or agreement."

AMFV
2015-12-29, 10:15 AM
if everyone just started I would tell you you're right. However, this is a player that enters along the way and thus it'sup to him to make a character that fits the party (to some extent) and doe snot need the DM to jump through hoops just to introduce him. If you, at this point being along the way, require plotarmour (what else is a plot reason to te be killed on sight) to just get into the party You're not helping anyone and creating an imbalance within the group. Becuase now you don't have a party member, but a special snowflake that is even more special then the rest of the players. If you don't figure a way to put forth plor armour, you can count on, if the occultist uses his classfeatures, will antagonise the cleric resulting in yet again PvP.

TL;DR - If you can't fit into an already exiting party, don't bother playing since you will actually wreck the campaign faste then you can say PvP. If you enter an already existing party, it's up to you to make the fit.

Why?

My opinion is that it's the DM's job to try to make plot stuff fit. In this case, it's not plot-armor, so much as plot-armor against PvP, and in a game where there isn't PvP focus that doesn't matter. All of the players should be special snowflakes, they should all have plot elements that make them unique. The things I suggested were not extremely snowflake, but fairly minor and those would prevent PvP, avoiding PvP in a game that doesn't call for it is a DM responsibility.

But if a player wants to play something then the DM's first suggestion should be ways to make that work, not a blanket ban. Yes, some concepts may wind up being unworkable, but declaring something that IS workable, unworkable, without any suggested solutions is a little bit rough, and to my mind, not superb DMing.

Theoboldi
2015-12-29, 10:27 AM
There is also the point that the Priest is Lawful Good. Unless he plans on throwing the lawful straight out the window he needs to have a legitimate, lawful reason to execute him. Especially if the occultist is willing to work with them.

I've played a LE Cleric with a Paladin using that same mechanic.

"You are evil and"
"What have I done?"
"Excuse me?"
"I am a cleric of an established church in these lands and have broken no laws of this land. By what right do you judge me?"
"You have performed an evil act by raising the dead and"
"That is not disallowed by my church or my kingdom. You have come into a kingdom I am a law-abiding citizen of and you have no right to draw sword against me. I would however be interested in hearing about what faith you apparently uphold and see if we might come to some discussion or agreement."

I heavily recommend against this. First of all, being of Lawful alignment does not necessarily mean that one follows the laws of the land in all situations, or even at all. A lawful cleric could just as well follow a very strict oath to kill each and every person who commits certain crimes, no matter what laws protect them. Lawful =/= Mindlessly Obedient.

Secondly, using the character's alignment to force the player to adventure with someone he doesn't want to adventure with could easily be seen as railroading by him, souring relations even further. It's telling him 'This is what your character should do.', which I cannot see ending well in this situation.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 10:28 AM
I heavily recommend against this. First of all, being of Lawful alignment does not necessarily mean that one follows the laws of the land in all situations, or even at all. A lawful cleric could just as well follow a very strict oath to kill each and every person who commits certain crimes, no matter what laws protect them.

Secondly, using the character's alignment to force the player to adventure with someone he doesn't want to adventure with could easily be seen as railroading by him, souring relations even further. It's telling him 'This is what your character should do.', which I cannot see ending well in this situation.

That's why you discuss it with the player prior to introducing the new character. Basically establishing guidelines. Allowing a pre-existing player to dictate choices to the new player is pretty unpleasant as well. Particularly if it involves making threats. I wouldn't put up with that, period. Yes, the new guy isn't being the most sensitive, but he's the new guy, he gets a little bit more leeway, but trying to change player action by forcing to kill a character, that's not appropriate.

Theoboldi
2015-12-29, 10:36 AM
That's why you discuss it with the player prior to introducing the new character. Basically establishing guidelines. Allowing a pre-existing player to dictate choices to the new player is pretty unpleasant as well. Particularly if it involves making threats. I wouldn't put up with that, period. Yes, the new guy isn't being the most sensitive, but he's the new guy, he gets a little bit more leeway, but trying to change player action by forcing to kill a character, that's not appropriate.

To be entirely honest, I think that the new guy should be the one to make an effort to fit into a pre-established group, even if it only means making a character they'd have no obvious problems adventuring with. I do agree that making threats and killing off the new character is a bad way to go about it, however.

Still, using alignment or anything like that to dictate how this players character should behave and that he must work together with the Occultist is, by my opinion, an equally bad idea. I really only wanted to warn against that.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 10:38 AM
To be entirely honest, I think that the new guy should be the one to make an effort to fit into a pre-established group, even if it only means making a character they'd have no obvious problems adventuring with. I do agree that making threats and killing off the new character is a bad way to go about it, however.

I agree that there's something to be said for status quo, but D&D isn't anything where a person with more experience should have de facto more authority. Unlike most jobs, and a lot of the real world. I think that a compromise should be reached, and I've suggested how I would do it. If that doesn't work, then it gets trickier.



Still, using alignment or anything like that to dictate how this players character should behave and that he must work together with the Occultist is, by my opinion, an equally bad idea. I really only wanted to warn against that.

And I agree with you in broad strokes, although I think that the Lawful alignment (as interpreted by that particular character), could be useful in figuring out a compromise that works.

Socratov
2015-12-29, 10:38 AM
That's why you discuss it with the player prior to introducing the new character. Basically establishing guidelines. Allowing a pre-existing player to dictate choices to the new player is pretty unpleasant as well. Particularly if it involves making threats. I wouldn't put up with that, period. Yes, the new guy isn't being the most sensitive, but he's the new guy, he gets a little bit more leeway, but trying to change player action by forcing to kill a character, that's not appropriate.
(emphasis mine)

Why? Why allow the new player to ruin the fun of the existing player(s)? That would be like changing the price after signing hte contract, but before payment.

If the new player is adamantin playing something the other players can't abide with, then what reason is there for them to include him in the party? Either it will come down to PvP, or if the DM forbids that, it comes down to one player having plot armour and effectively power over another. I can't think of any reason to do this. None at all.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 11:14 AM
(emphasis mine)

Why? Why allow the new player to ruin the fun of the existing player(s)? That would be like changing the price after signing hte contract, but before payment.

If the new player is adamantin playing something the other players can't abide with, then what reason is there for them to include him in the party? Either it will come down to PvP, or if the DM forbids that, it comes down to one player having plot armour and effectively power over another. I can't think of any reason to do this. None at all.

Why should the old players get to dictate things? Have they ranked up? There isn't any difference in anything except for seniority. I would not give one player ANY power over another, you can give a plot reason for one player not to kill another that does not correlate to "I am your direct supervisor". Probably I would present several as possibilities to present to the Cleric Player to see if there was any way a compromise could be reached.

Why do it? Because I want everybody to be able to play the things they want and enjoy themselves. Period. Sometimes you have to reduce your fun to make everybody have fun. Period. If one player is unable to compromise for the new guy, he's going to be trouble later. Of course if a compromise can't be reached, then I would try more drastic solutions. But the solution where everybody gets what they want: Ergo, the Cleric is able to roleplay his alignment (but can't kill the other player because of plot reasons), and the other player is able to play exactly what he wants. That's the best solution, not only that, but that will encourage roleplaying rivalries can be just as engrossing as friendships.

goto124
2015-12-29, 11:34 AM
Why should the old players get to dictate things? Have they ranked up?

Another issue: the new player is joining in the middle of a game that's already running.

In addition, there's fairly good reason not to trust a new player to roleplay very well, let alone roleplay an evil character that fits in a party with a pre-established Lawful Good character.

Eugoraton Feiht
2015-12-29, 11:41 AM
Another issue: the new player is joining in the middle of a game that's already running.

In addition, there's fairly good reason not to trust a new player to roleplay very well, let alone roleplay an evil character that fits in a party with a pre-established Lawful Good character.

This I agree with. That kind of song and dance should be done if everyone already knows each other, are forewarned that pvp is allowed, and have all already agreed to it. That was the case for my group.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 11:41 AM
Another issue: the new player is joining in the middle of a game that's already running.


Right, and that doesn't excuse a player who is in the game behaving badly, or his refusal to even listen to a compromise (provided that such a refusal exists)



In addition, there's fairly good reason not to trust a new player to roleplay very well, let alone roleplay an evil character that fits in a party with a pre-established Lawful Good character.

Why? I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt. If he fails, then he just rerolls, which was most of your initial suggestion. If he succeeds it makes for awesome roleplay. I have everything to gain from giving him that trust, and very little to lose. I would rather treat my players like adults, not like children who need constant supervision. Until they demonstrate that they do in fact need constant supervision.

Segev
2015-12-29, 11:43 AM
The existing players have priority because they do have seniority. Or, more to the point, they have a right not to have a newcomer tell them they must change how their game is going and how their characters are portrayed on a fundamental level just to accommodate him. It is the responsibility of a new player in an established game to work with the GM to make a character who fits in with the party.

Now, the established PCs' players should be willing to make accommodations within reason; it's not reasonable to say "I cannot ever allow anything but this extremely narrow thing." But when it's just a blanket ban on one particular activity (e.g. animating the dead), that's not unreasonable. I, personally, would want to try to reach an accommodation with the objector(s) to let me play that, because I think it could be interesting, but if I couldn't, as a new PC's player, I would make a PC that could fit in with the party.

There ARE ways to engender the plot armor, if the cleric's player is willing to consider them. But it is wrong to tell him, "the new guy has more right to fun than you do, so you have to give up your character and your enjoyment of him for his sake."

So the question is: is the cleric's player open to the idea as long as some excuse why the cleric isn't killing the occultist outright is provided, or is the cleric's player not wanting to play a game where his cleric has to put up with this evil-seeming/leaning person in the party? Because if it's the former, we can work with that and figure out a good excuse that will survive scrutiny due to the cleric's player's playing along. If it's the latter, then we should not try, as that's twisting the cleric's player's arm and making him feel like his character is no longer welcome in the game.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 11:52 AM
The existing players have priority because they do have seniority. Or, more to the point, they have a right not to have a newcomer tell them they must change how their game is going and how their characters are portrayed on a fundamental level just to accommodate him. It is the responsibility of a new player in an established game to work with the GM to make a character who fits in with the party.


I don't agree that this is in all cases true. The existing players have a sort of priority because they are there. I agree that they should not change how their characters are portrayed on a fundamental level, but "I kill random dudes, because I don't like them", isn't really in all but the most extreme cases a character portrayal trait.



Now, the established PCs' players should be willing to make accommodations within reason; it's not reasonable to say "I cannot ever allow anything but this extremely narrow thing." But when it's just a blanket ban on one particular activity (e.g. animating the dead), that's not unreasonable. I, personally, would want to try to reach an accommodation with the objector(s) to let me play that, because I think it could be interesting, but if I couldn't, as a new PC's player, I would make a PC that could fit in with the party.

You are an experienced player, who could much more easily make something that would fit the concept you were going for without treading on toes. Whereas the other player may not be. I don't think that "fitting with the party" is always the most ideal goal, after all Raistlin wasn't a good fit, and he's one of the most remembered D&D characters of ALL time. Sometimes figuring out how to make something that fit that normally shouldn't is one of the things that makes things develop the most dramatically.



There ARE ways to engender the plot armor, if the cleric's player is willing to consider them. But it is wrong to tell him, "the new guy has more right to fun than you do, so you have to give up your character and your enjoyment of him for his sake."

But that isn't what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting "I don't like this guys' PC idea, I'm going to murder his character" is horsecrap, that's not worth tolerating, that isn't roleplay, it isn't acting "in-character" it's using "in-character" as an excuse to bully people into doing what you want, I don't put up with that. Period. Now if they were playing a Dark Inquisitor type game, or a Paranoia type game, that might be appropriate but only in the most general cases.



So the question is: is the cleric's player open to the idea as long as some excuse why the cleric isn't killing the occultist outright is provided, or is the cleric's player not wanting to play a game where his cleric has to put up with this evil-seeming/leaning person in the party? Because if it's the former, we can work with that and figure out a good excuse that will survive scrutiny due to the cleric's player's playing along. If it's the latter, then we should not try, as that's twisting the cleric's player's arm and making him feel like his character is no longer welcome in the game.

This.

The compromise should be presented before the banhammer. I would argue that all efforts should focus on making both players able to do what they want. Then refluffing can be suggested, then finally the new player may have to accommodate, since he doesn't have seniority. But forcible accommodation should not be the first step, but the last.

JBPuffin
2015-12-29, 12:16 PM
Why should the old players get to dictate things? Have they ranked up? There isn't any difference in anything except for seniority. I would not give one player ANY power over another, you can give a plot reason for one player not to kill another that does not correlate to "I am your direct supervisor". Probably I would present several as possibilities to present to the Cleric Player to see if there was any way a compromise could be reached.

Why do it? Because I want everybody to be able to play the things they want and enjoy themselves. Period. Sometimes you have to reduce your fun to make everybody have fun. Period. If one player is unable to compromise for the new guy, he's going to be trouble later. Of course if a compromise can't be reached, then I would try more drastic solutions. But the solution where everybody gets what they want: Ergo, the Cleric is able to roleplay his alignment (but can't kill the other player because of plot reasons), and the other player is able to play exactly what he wants. That's the best solution, not only that, but that will encourage roleplaying rivalries can be just as engrossing as friendships.

1st - You said that you wouldn't give one player any power over another. Do you not play with a Dungeon Master, then? They're players, too.

2nd - Seniority isn't the only issue here. The guy wants to play a character that goes against the party dynamic, KNOWING that it's against the party dynamic. Is the cleric's response terribly mature? No, but it is actually in-character; killing evil things is a mandate of several LG forces, after all.

3rd - Mutually reducing fun for each others' sake is exactly what these other fine folk have been suggesting. The only differences are that they see that a new player is beholden to those who are introducing hir to the game (without whom they wouldn't get to play at all), and they don't believe that the game in play has an integrity that should be protected. Crafting plot armor, no matter how little it appears to be, for a PC is tantamount to favoritism towards that player, and to properly introduce a player to a game there's a limit to what you can tolerate. Not understanding how initiative or skill checks work? That's fine, they'll learn. Having to invent a reason for the party to accept this new person that blatantly defies the party's purpose out of the blue? Sorry, that's asking too much.

In the long run, showing the new player that they can't always get what they want is better than giving them what they want and giving them the idea that they'll never have to compromise for the sake of their fellow players.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 12:29 PM
1st - You said that you wouldn't give one player any power over another. Do you not play with a Dungeon Master, then? They're players, too.

A DM has a different role, that involves different things. Also a total non-sequitur, not particularly relevant to what's being discussed.



2nd - Seniority isn't the only issue here. The guy wants to play a character that goes against the party dynamic, KNOWING that it's against the party dynamic. Is the cleric's response terribly mature? No, but it is actually in-character; killing evil things is a mandate of several LG forces, after all.

Not without cause, at least not in ANY sourcebook I've ever read, and those I've read have suggested that just murdering evil things for the hell of it, is in and of itself pretty evil.



3rd - Mutually reducing fun for each others' sake is exactly what these other fine folk have been suggesting. The only differences are that they see that a new player is beholden to those who are introducing hir to the game (without whom they wouldn't get to play at all), and they don't believe that the game in play has an integrity that should be protected. Crafting plot armor, no matter how little it appears to be, for a PC is tantamount to favoritism towards that player, and to properly introduce a player to a game there's a limit to what you can tolerate. Not understanding how initiative or skill checks work? That's fine, they'll learn. Having to invent a reason for the party to accept this new person that blatantly defies the party's purpose out of the blue? Sorry, that's asking too much.


They want to essentially restrict a new player's fun absolutely, to maintain a small portion of fun for one player. Not a fair trade, in my book. He's not "defying the party's purpose", period, he's somebody with the same goal but a different moral framework. That isn't "defying the party's purpose", that's "Any enemy of Hitler is a friend of mine", yes after the campaign it might go very differently.

I also said that ALL players should have their own unique plot elements that isn't favoritism, that would be the opposite.



In the long run, showing the new player that they can't always get what they want is better than giving them what they want and giving them the idea that they'll never have to compromise for the sake of their fellow players.

I suggested that a compromise be suggested, and since a character concept is a huge deal, I suggested not completely gutting somebody's character concept in order to preserve a small facet of others. You aren't teaching the new player anything except that a player with seniority will always win. And since this is an established group he'll never be senior, ergo, he'll always lose.

It's a much better lesson that both sides should bend, that's what a compromise is. You're suggesting what is tantamount to surrender, one side getting everything they want and the other side getting nothing, isn't a compromise.

Socratov
2015-12-29, 02:14 PM
A compromise is fine if everyone has invested the same. Sure it isn't up to the established players to decide what the new player is going to play, that's ridiculous (how many times I hear about someone being roped into playing the healbot...). That said just like you can't suddenly change the game edition: you can reasonably expect that things will generally stay the same and within the established bounds. Barring DM fiat this is a given. Now a party has been made, one of which is a rather militant and rather LG. This means that this cleric must a have an absolutely fantastic reason not to be antagonistic against something that even remotely smells of evil.

So, in comes a new player who thinks it's really good fun to start playing something that raises the dead, summons fiends/devils, and ticks a lot of boxes a LG would have severe compunctions about. Please remember that a paladin falls if s/he willingly associates with evil. For a cleric of a LG god things might be less prohibitive, but I can imagine the god in question not being stoked about one his followers (and depending on level of a certain importance) chumming it up with an evil person. You know what that can mean right? That could very well make our cleric into a hotdog in tinfoil.

I can very well understand that this is a problem for the cleric player: if the new guy can enter his occultist and the cleric is given a reason to not kill him (and that must be a really, really fantastic piece of logic) that wil effectively tell the cleric player that yes, he can not, retroactively play his character as he likes it. and yes, the occultist player can.

I have, on these boards, seen players talk about this and the advice he got was "step out, better no game then a bad game, and this is a bad game".

So, yes, if the occultist player isn't willing to at least refluff it into something more palatable for the party and a choice for the established LG cleric or the XE occultist newcomer is forced, I'll side with the cleric player all the way. Yes, he got into the game first. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the newcomer to fit into the party, and not for the party to fit the player.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 02:26 PM
A compromise is fine if everyone has invested the same. Sure it isn't up to the established players to decide what the new player is going to play, that's ridiculous (how many times I hear about someone being roped into playing the healbot...). That said just like you can't suddenly change the game edition: you can reasonably expect that things will generally stay the same and within the established bounds. Barring DM fiat this is a given. Now a party has been made, one of which is a rather militant and rather LG. This means that this cleric must a have an absolutely fantastic reason not to be antagonistic against something that even remotely smells of evil.

I can suddenly shake things up. That's part of the job as a DM, to keep the characters progressing and developing. And what better way to encourage character development than to introduce nuance to what they didn't have. I certainly don't keep things within established bounds, I evolve the story, and players should expect to do the same, except in the most muderhobo of campaigns, and in those this wouldn't be an issue anyways.



So, in comes a new player who thinks it's really good fun to start playing something that raises the dead, summons fiends/devils, and ticks a lot of boxes a LG would have severe compunctions about. Please remember that a paladin falls if s/he willingly associates with evil. For a cleric of a LG god things might be less prohibitive, but I can imagine the god in question not being stoked about one his followers (and depending on level of a certain importance) chumming it up with an evil person. You know what that can mean right? That could very well make our cleric into a hotdog in tinfoil.


Depends on WHY he is chumming it up with him, is the Cleric trying to redeem him, is it unavoidable at this point? Is it something that the Cleric simply cannot avoid, because the God would probably be pretty understanding in that regard. Admittedly he might keep track of those things, to charge him with later, but he might not be able to do anything with it at this point. There doesn't need to be an absolute here.

Also a Paladin gets exceptions both in cases of attempted redemption and in cases of necessity. Furthermore, the "Association" clause is about the dumbest part of the Paladin Oath, and i love Paladins. But anything that would prevent you from interacting with large portions of the clergy (LN God), needs to go.



I can very well understand that this is a problem for the cleric player: if the new guy can enter his occultist and the cleric is given a reason to not kill him (and that must be a really, really fantastic piece of logic) that wil effectively tell the cleric player that yes, he can not, retroactively play his character as he likes it. and yes, the occultist player can.

Not even close. Period. That isn't remotely equivalent. Me being told that I cannot kill other people's characters, is not the same thing as me being told that I cannot play my character. That's not equivalent. A player (nor a DM) does not have the right to play whatever he wants at the exclusion of the others. Period. That is what you are suggesting. The player in question is not restricting the cleric from doing anything but arbitrarily murdering his character, that's not a big restriction.

Socratov
2015-12-29, 02:56 PM
I can suddenly shake things up. That's part of the job as a DM, to keep the characters progressing and developing. And what better way to encourage character development than to introduce nuance to what they didn't have. I certainly don't keep things within established bounds, I evolve the story, and players should expect to do the same, except in the most muderhobo of campaigns, and in those this wouldn't be an issue anyways.

Shaking things up is one thing, creating the opportunity for character development is another, forcing to do so is railroading and removes player agency.


Depends on WHY he is chumming it up with him, is the Cleric trying to redeem him, is it unavoidable at this point? Is it something that the Cleric simply cannot avoid, because the God would probably be pretty understanding in that regard. Admittedly he might keep track of those things, to charge him with later, but he might not be able to do anything with it at this point. There doesn't need to be an absolute here.
so how do you redeem someone whose classfeatures are all about evil acts? or is his moment of redemption a total rework of his character in terms of abilities?

Also a Paladin gets exceptions both in cases of attempted redemption and in cases of necessity. Furthermore, the "Association" clause is about the dumbest part of the Paladin Oath, and i love Paladins. But anything that would prevent you from interacting with large portions of the clergy (LN God), needs to go.

So, scenario 1: redemption, which is, unless the player has stated he plans for redemption, railroading of said character and might become harassment. Scenario 2: forced association is still railroading because you don't give the player a choice about who he can adventure with as he must endure the opposite spectrum.


Not even close. Period. That isn't remotely equivalent. Me being told that I cannot kill other people's characters, is not the same thing as me being told that I cannot play my character. That's not equivalent. A player (nor a DM) does not have the right to play whatever he wants at the exclusion of the others. Period. That is what you are suggesting. The player in question is not restricting the cleric from doing anything but arbitrarily murdering his character, that's not a big restriction.

No, that's what you are suggesting: you suggest that the new guys should be cut some slack and can play whatever he wants, even if it directly clashes with the arty dynamic and then force the other players to play nice. That IS a problem. One player is actively, by design of his character, hindering other players in how they would play their character by virtue of him being a player. In this specific case the player is silently challenging the cleric. And there is a red flag.

MrNobody
2015-12-29, 03:07 PM
The problem is, the priest actually plans on killing him if he takes the occultist class, and doesn't give him a VERY good reason IC why he shouldn't (cant blame him).

Bolded mine.

Since it seems obvious that is difficult to agree on who has the right to do what, and some people don't think that the refluff could be the way out, why don't we try to find those VERY GOOD REASONS that could make possible at least a cold-war-type coexistence between the two characters?
I'll try (note that some solution could require the DM to create ad hoc quests or sub-quests:

- Same target: the water cleric and the occultist share the same mission. For example, a CG sea demigod is trying to snatch the infuence over the water domain from the cleric's god. On the other side, the Occultist is sent by Dagon to defeat that same CG sea demigod and seize is influence over the Northern seas.
The characters agree on a temporary alliance to defeat the god.

- Quest for corruption and/or redemption: the forces of Good require the cleric to have the Occultist repent and join their ranks. He must address him as a tempermental child that must be educated.
Otherwise (or in addition) the Occultist is sent by an evil god of water to make the cleric fall. The occultist will have to trick him into performing evil acts.
The characters stay together while tempting each other.

- LUKE, I AM YOUR FATHER! Plot twist! The two are blood related (if the players are ok with it). An obscure secret dwells inside their blood and they could unearth it only by working together!

These are only the first things that came to my mind... i'm sure we all could do better!:smallsmile:

Segev
2015-12-29, 04:36 PM
This isn't, from what I'm seeing, a player saying, "I hate his concept, and will kill his character to get my way." He's saying, "I don't see how this concept, which check-marks every 'kill on sight' box my character's personality, portrayal, and in-game role has, can avoid having my character attack his to kill it without some SERIOUS effort to come up with ways to avoid that."

This is reasonable.

If you've got a player playing a former slave who fights against slavery at all times and has never once tolerated seeing somebody enslaved without actively fighting to free them, you wouldn't think his player unreasonable for pointing out that he would be trying to free the slaves of a new PC who came into the party with dozens of them beholden to him. It would be an immediate conflict, and it's more unreasonable to expect the established character, who is known for never tolerating slavery in any form, to suddenly accept it for no reason other than "this slave-holder is a PC" than it is to expect the would-be PC who owns slaves to have a player who attempts to either figure out a way for the two to coexist in the party without violating the first PC's character, or to choose something else that doesn't force the first player to choose between playing in-character and playing in the party.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 05:10 PM
This isn't, from what I'm seeing, a player saying, "I hate his concept, and will kill his character to get my way." He's saying, "I don't see how this concept, which check-marks every 'kill on sight' box my character's personality, portrayal, and in-game role has, can avoid having my character attack his to kill it without some SERIOUS effort to come up with ways to avoid that."


So you provide the ways to avoid that. Pretty simple. Lots of times people have to not kill people they would like to.



This is reasonable.

If you've got a player playing a former slave who fights against slavery at all times and has never once tolerated seeing somebody enslaved without actively fighting to free them, you wouldn't think his player unreasonable for pointing out that he would be trying to free the slaves of a new PC who came into the party with dozens of them beholden to him. It would be an immediate conflict, and it's more unreasonable to expect the established character, who is known for never tolerating slavery in any form, to suddenly accept it for no reason other than "this slave-holder is a PC" than it is to expect the would-be PC who owns slaves to have a player who attempts to either figure out a way for the two to coexist in the party without violating the first PC's character, or to choose something else that doesn't force the first player to choose between playing in-character and playing in the party.

I would suggest that the DM should present a compromise, if one is possible, if not then he should sit down with the players and see if a compromise can be reached, if not then he will have to rule, and in this case, seniority would factor in. I'm just saying that compromise should come before arbitration.


Shaking things up is one thing, creating the opportunity for character development is another, forcing to do so is railroading and removes player agency.so how do you redeem someone whose classfeatures are all about evil acts? or is his moment of redemption a total rework of his character in terms of abilities?So, scenario 1: redemption, which is, unless the player has stated he plans for redemption, railroading of said character and might become harassment. Scenario 2: forced association is still railroading because you don't give the player a choice about who he can adventure with as he must endure the opposite spectrum.

Presenting plot hooks is NOT railroading. The players have many ways they can deal with this scenario. Is it "Railroading" if my players are in a military campaign and I give them orders? Is it "Railroading" if I tell my players that they need to take a quest giver with them.



No, that's what you are suggesting: you suggest that the new guys should be cut some slack and can play whatever he wants, even if it directly clashes with the arty dynamic and then force the other players to play nice. That IS a problem. One player is actively, by design of his character, hindering other players in how they would play their character by virtue of him being a player. In this specific case the player is silently challenging the cleric. And there is a red flag.

I am suggesting that a compromise could be reached, before simply banning, which is something absolutely nobody was saying earlier. There are many paths to compromise prior to banning (the nuclear option). If none of them work THEN banning the player from playing it. And we DON'T FREAKING KNOW that the player is challenging the Cleric, that was never stated in the OP, that was not implied in the OP, the only thing that was stated is that the Cleric reacted to what the player was wanting to play with overt pretty much out of character hostility. Which is bad, a compromise could certainly be reached here.

Segev
2015-12-29, 08:12 PM
I'm not sure why people are assuming compromise is not something being discussed. The "don't bring in a PC that doesn't work with the party" argument isn't being levied as a "don't let him play that, no, don't even discuss it" suggestion. It's just the conclusion if a workable way to make the new proposed PC work with the party cannot be found, and a statement of why it is the new PC which should be the one not to be in the party if they cannot find a way for both to.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 08:16 PM
I'm not sure why people are assuming compromise is not something being discussed. The "don't bring in a PC that doesn't work with the party" argument isn't being levied as a "don't let him play that, no, don't even discuss it" suggestion. It's just the conclusion if a workable way to make the new proposed PC work with the party cannot be found, and a statement of why it is the new PC which should be the one not to be in the party if they cannot find a way for both to.

Because a compromise wasn't something that was being discussed. There was a drastic refluffing or a total ban suggested. That's again not a compromise, that's an ultimatum, which may be necessary. All I'm saying is a more fair compromise is possible, and I would argue preferable.

Segev
2015-12-29, 08:51 PM
Because a compromise wasn't something that was being discussed. There was a drastic refluffing or a total ban suggested. That's again not a compromise, that's an ultimatum, which may be necessary. All I'm saying is a more fair compromise is possible, and I would argue preferable.

I don't think anybody's said a "compromise" is impossible, though I question whether it really is a compromise if both parties can be fully satisfied.

What have been suggested are various methods of adapting the occultist to not be unacceptable to the cleric. Asking the cleric to "compromise" by changing his character IS unfair. Asking the cleric to work with the occultist to design the "very good reason" why his PC isn't out to kill the occultist is quite fair. While that has only been suggested a little compared to "refluff it," the "refluff" and "ban" suggestions are loudest because the first is the go-to dodge of the problem while the second is important to emphasize, since there is often a concern that a new player entering a game will try to force something if "ban it" isn't on the table, whether out of a sense of entitlement or simple ignorance of the trouble it can cause. It's important to establish that the precedent goes to the existing player's character, in the event that a workable arrangement cannot be reached, because otherwise the "compromise" starts from the assumption that both have equal right to demand the other change things, despite one not having been added to the game yet and the other having been firmly characterized for some time.

I, personally, reacted to the tone whereby it seemed assumed that the cleric's player is inherently in the wrong for objecting to a character which his would not willingly party with, and for daring to mention that he is concerned about his own character's integrity as a character should this new PC not provide good reason why the cleric should make an exception to his presumably well-established "kill necromancers and demon-binders" MO. And it IS very much the responsibility of a new party member's player to come up with reasons why his character SHOULD be acceptable to the party. Especially if he's making a potentially problematic one.

AMFV
2015-12-29, 08:55 PM
I don't think anybody's said a "compromise" is impossible, though I question whether it really is a compromise if both parties can be fully satisfied.

What have been suggested are various methods of adapting the occultist to not be unacceptable to the cleric. Asking the cleric to "compromise" by changing his character IS unfair. Asking the cleric to work with the occultist to design the "very good reason" why his PC isn't out to kill the occultist is quite fair. While that has only been suggested a little compared to "refluff it," the "refluff" and "ban" suggestions are loudest because the first is the go-to dodge of the problem while the second is important to emphasize, since there is often a concern that a new player entering a game will try to force something if "ban it" isn't on the table, whether out of a sense of entitlement or simple ignorance of the trouble it can cause. It's important to establish that the precedent goes to the existing player's character, in the event that a workable arrangement cannot be reached, because otherwise the "compromise" starts from the assumption that both have equal right to demand the other change things, despite one not having been added to the game yet and the other having been firmly characterized for some time.


Certainly true. I agree with this.



I, personally, reacted to the tone whereby it seemed assumed that the cleric's player is inherently in the wrong for objecting to a character which his would not willingly party with, and for daring to mention that he is concerned about his own character's integrity as a character should this new PC not provide good reason why the cleric should make an exception to his presumably well-established "kill necromancers and demon-binders" MO. And it IS very much the responsibility of a new party member's player to come up with reasons why his character SHOULD be acceptable to the party. Especially if he's making a potentially problematic one.

Well it's possible that I read the statement as less pleasant and more jerkish than it was in reality. Although I do feel that character integrity is at a lower standing than party cohesion.

Segev
2015-12-29, 09:47 PM
Well it's possible that I read the statement as less pleasant and more jerkish than it was in reality. Although I do feel that character integrity is at a lower standing than party cohesion.

Most people do; we tend, from hard experience, therefore, to be vigilent against ignorant or malicious players taking advantage of that to be jerks to the party and then expect no repercussions in the name of "party cohesion."

I am not saying that's what's going on here, by any means, but it's something we tend to instinctively guard and even warn against encouraging/allowing.

Mr.Moron
2015-12-29, 10:25 PM
Why should the old players get to dictate things? Have they ranked up?.

Yes. Depending on the exact nature of the group they've earned approximately 120-399 Pxp (Pizza XP) or CTxp (Chinese Takeout) per session, and attained at minimum 3-4 levels in "Decent Person to hang round" though most have already met the pre-reqs and already taken levels in the "Cool Gamer" prestige class. They'll also have earned several achievements such as

"Puts up with my tardiness"
"Smelt my farts"
and
"Covered for me when I forgot my cash"

While these can't be actively cashed in for favors they do affecting their Affinity Score, which passively gives them bonus on all checks made to influence the GM.


The new player has no Pxp or CTxp. Is usually taking levels still taking levels in

"Who the **** is this?" and has a negative affinity score.

Socratov
2015-12-31, 09:58 AM
Because a compromise wasn't something that was being discussed. There was a drastic refluffing or a total ban suggested. That's again not a compromise, that's an ultimatum, which may be necessary. All I'm saying is a more fair compromise is possible, and I would argue preferable.
that's with a compromise this discussion is about as pointless as a 2ed's Cleric's weapon. the moment it does get a problem (i.e. a satisfying compromise is not reached) that is where we started discussing (after options for making that compromise had briefly been discussed).

So you provide the ways to avoid that. Pretty simple. Lots of times people have to not kill people they would like to.



I would suggest that the DM should present a compromise, if one is possible, if not then he should sit down with the players and see if a compromise can be reached, if not then he will have to rule, and in this case, seniority would factor in. I'm just saying that compromise should come before arbitration.

Andhere lies the crux: in DnD we often try to play extremes. a 3.5 Paladin is LG++, that's visibe in his alignment and his code of honour. A Blackguard is LE, such is the way it is. Especially with characters whch rely on some kind of devotion or divine being (like clerics) will ahve to conform to some ideals fixed with an immovable rod. and if someone wants to play that character (even though he might become a problem player in certain parties) that should, given the circumstances, be possible. Sometimes to compromise at all isn't true to the character (a cleric of pelor hanging around with undead? yeah, great idea there), since it will detract form the character as is. Especially if the character has been established and a new player joins with a character to disrupt that situation. making the cleric of Pelor change his attitude and behaviour completely contrary to character is too much to ask tbh.


Presenting plot hooks is NOT railroading. The players have many ways they can deal with this scenario. Is it "Railroading" if my players are in a military campaign and I give them orders? Is it "Railroading" if I tell my players that they need to take a quest giver with them.

it is if the players don't have a choice to not be in the army or not be under that particular command, or if they have no option but to follow through in the path you set for them. If you remove the choice th eplaye ris nothing more then a flesh operated token in your story.


I am suggesting that a compromise could be reached, before simply banning, which is something absolutely nobody was saying earlier. There are many paths to compromise prior to banning (the nuclear option). If none of them work THEN banning the player from playing it. And we DON'T FREAKING KNOW that the player is challenging the Cleric, that was never stated in the OP, that was not implied in the OP, the only thing that was stated is that the Cleric reacted to what the player was wanting to play with overt pretty much out of character hostility. Which is bad, a compromise could certainly be reached here.

not if certain abilities of the class inquestion aren't changed... it's like this: you can make really [pretty skeletons with flowers and daisies growing on top who do nothing but brush the horses and cut the lawn and otwerwise embody Mr. rogers, they are still udnead and if you cleric is of a faith that thinks undead are blanket capital 'B' Bad then there is nothing you can do about it.

neonchameleon
2015-12-31, 12:23 PM
So, any advice on roleplay advice that would make coexistence in a party possible (not just for this specific scenario, but how do you rp an evil char in a good party), and any advice how to make his character dying perhaps a fun or interesting for him (i will suggest to our DM putting him as a major villain later, trying to kill the party that almost killed him or something along the lines).

Sit the players down together and discuss it like adults. This would appear to be more an OOC problem with different understandings of the alignment system and different play expectations than an IC character.

HeadAcheron
2015-12-31, 04:45 PM
Sit the players down together and discuss it like adults. This would appear to be more an OOC problem with different understandings of the alignment system and different play expectations than an IC character. That's why I like the house-rule I mentioned earlier:

I've never played a game myself, but I have read a lot of roleplayingtips.com and similar sites, and the favorite tip that I've found is: when one player decided that hir character will make an aggressive move (attack, bluff, theft) against another PC, then the target character's player decides what happens (does it work or not, does the target character notice or not...). If they both agree that PVP makes the game more fun, then they are allowed to do it. If one person doesn't like it, then they're not allowed to do it.

anti-ninja
2016-01-03, 05:31 PM
I honestly never saw whats wrong with a little PvP every once in a while. Sure it can be handled badly but if everyone in the room is mature it can be i fun and even create interesting dynamics down the line. Assuming that everyone makes it out alive ,you know the whole " your an evil cultist i'm a righteous cleric we fought I almost killed you ,you almost killed me but now this town/macguffin/person is at stake and we have to put aside our differences and work together." besides maybe that player doesn't really care about the mechanics of the occultist but the feel of the class ,and therefore swapping his mechanics to good aligned fluff would ruin it for him/her.

GentlemanVoodoo
2016-01-04, 12:34 AM
I honestly never saw whats wrong with a little PvP every once in a while. Sure it can be handled badly but if everyone in the room is mature it can be i fun and even create interesting dynamics down the line. Assuming that everyone makes it out alive ,you know the whole " your an evil cultist i'm a righteous cleric we fought I almost killed you ,you almost killed me but now this town/macguffin/person is at stake and we have to put aside our differences and work together." besides maybe that player doesn't really care about the mechanics of the occultist but the feel of the class ,and therefore swapping his mechanics to good aligned fluff would ruin it for him/her.

Two things would have to be assumed. First, everyone is matured which more than likely not going to be the case. Second, PvP is something that should be agreed upon by all players. If not, and someone does die off without agreeing for it to be done, much in-fighting ensues among the players. This is why PvP is generally to be avoided.

Segev
2016-01-04, 03:38 PM
PvP has a tremendous risk of becoming personal. It also often is performed by players who violate a social convention under the guise of "it's in character" while hiding behind that same social convention to protect themselves from retaliation.

It may be "in character" to kill or steal from the other PC, but why is it then expected that the remaining PCs would tolerate and keep around the murderer or thief?

It also is often used as a means of bullying. I don't get why people do it, but I know it happens. Sometimes it's just one player who can't get away with IRL bullying to drive another from a group and won't admit IRL that he has a problem with them (because that would make him "the bad guy" and the one expected to leave), so instead he does it IC, hiding behind "it's in character," hoping to ruin the fun of the other player and trying to make the "it's just a game" argument get the others on his side. And, of course, if the target of the bullying retaliates in character, the bully makes it out that the target of bullying is being unfair, metagaming, etc.


These are only SOME of the reasons PvP is often so heavily decried when it happens. A lot of it boils down to the fact that it often requires somebody to rely on the protection of "I'm a PC" while denying it to others. Or leads to a breakdown of the party and subsequently the game as the party lacks the cohesion necessary to run a game.

anti-ninja
2016-01-04, 05:20 PM
Two things would have to be assumed. First, everyone is matured which more than likely not going to be the case. Second, PvP is something that should be agreed upon by all players. If not, and someone does die off without agreeing for it to be done, much in-fighting ensues among the players. This is why PvP is generally to be avoided. I guess this is my personal experience so I know its a grain of salt but. I have never been in a game where someone got seriously mad over someone doing something attacking to his imaginary friend. This is just personal experience i certainly haven't been playing for as long as a lot of the members of this forum, maybe that's common I don't now but I cant imagine that really happening all that often.

It may be "in character" to kill or steal from the other PC, but why is it then expected that the remaining PCs would tolerate and keep around the murderer or thief?
1.) where out on a crusade on the fringes of society that cultist guy was just defending himself
To be more general
2.)yeah he stole from us which is exactly why hes helping us defeat the BBG , as repayment for those jewels he took and pawned
3.)Yes he killed so and so but its not like it was unprovoked and honestly society is safer with him venturing to the wilderness with us to find the macguffin to save the world , then with him running loose.
all of the above create interesting dynamics which can lead to more fun.Maybe the group does kill the murderer so what he and his victim roll up a new charecters and forget about it . This mat not be right for every group but that does not make the chance of PvP happening the worst thing ever.

Mr.Moron
2016-01-04, 08:58 PM
I guess this is my personal experience so I know its a grain of salt but. I have never been in a game where someone got seriously mad over someone doing something attacking to his imaginary friend. This is just personal experience i certainly haven't been playing for as long as a lot of the members of this forum, maybe that's common I don't now but I cant imagine that really happening all that often.


Every time I've seen it maybe people don't get "seriously mad" but they do get frustrated and they do quit games over it. "Less omg <expletive deleted> you <expletive deleted>s" and more "yeeahh, I'm out". One of the universally agreed upon "Worst games ever" in my larger gaming group is one where the DM allowed PvP without every agreeing. Sure enough players killed other players under the guise of "Sorry, what my character would do!" and it just killed the mood.

Segev
2016-01-05, 11:02 AM
1.) where out on a crusade on the fringes of society that cultist guy was just defending himself
To be more general
2.)yeah he stole from us which is exactly why hes helping us defeat the BBG , as repayment for those jewels he took and pawned
3.)Yes he killed so and so but its not like it was unprovoked and honestly society is safer with him venturing to the wilderness with us to find the macguffin to save the world , then with him running loose.
all of the above create interesting dynamics which can lead to more fun.Maybe the group does kill the murderer so what he and his victim roll up a new charecters and forget about it . This mat not be right for every group but that does not make the chance of PvP happening the worst thing ever.

Kinda missed my point, here. What I'm saying is that PvP is often problematic because it's ONE player leaning on the social contract of the table to protect him while violating it at another's expense. The most egregious examples are when, say, a rogue steals from a barbarian, and that's okay because it's "in character," but if the barbarian reacts with violence, the barbarian is guilty of PvP in the eyes of the table and is the "bad guy."

Yes, you can absolutely come up with reasons to put up with the character who constantly backstabs the party. But that doesn't mean the table should feel obligated to. If he's ruining the fun for everybody else, and the PCs feel that he's more detriment to their goals than help, then it's not right to assume that his PvP is okay while their retaliatory PvP is not.

It is, however, because people don't like having to instigate or be victims of PvP that rules and social conventions against it form. Because if they aren't there and (if necessary) enforced, it is essentially a form of bullying, OOC. (This isn't to say that innocently engaging in it without realizing there's a convention against it is bullying. One needs to be informed that one's actions are dissatisfactory if one lacks reason to suspect it before it can be considered malign.)

Mr Beer
2016-01-05, 04:41 PM
I don't actually have rules on PvP because the group of people I play with all tend to run cooperative types who want to adventure together. The PvP incidents I have had in the past are directly as a result of dickishness disguised as 'but muh character would!' and neither of those people game with us any more, one for general life reasons and the other because I asked him to leave.

EDIT

I guess I'm saying if we had PvP as a result of a new player being dickish, I'd be more likely to ban the new player as opposed to PvP. If it was one of the existing group, chances are it would actually be in character and would stop short of some out of game hurt feelings. If it didn't, then I would try to broker a solution, but TBH with these guys, I don't think I'd need to.

EDIT2

I basically agree with Segev above and it's more specific to talk about violating 'the social contract' and 'disguised bullying' than it is to say 'dickishness'. I suspect in both cases these guys were probably lashing out at a perceived lack of control in their own lives due to personal inadequacies but my house isn't a psychiatrist's couch.

anti-ninja
2016-01-05, 04:47 PM
it is essentially a form of bullying, OOC. I play with friends so maybe this is just me, but I Don't think I have ever seen pvp as bullying

Kinda missed my point, here. What I'm saying is that PvP is often problematic because it's ONE player leaning on the social contract of the table to protect him while violating it at another's expense. The most egregious examples are when, say, a rogue steals from a barbarian, and that's okay because it's "in character," but if the barbarian reacts with violence, the barbarian is guilty of PvP in the eyes of the table and is the "bad guy."

Yes, you can absolutely come up with reasons to put up with the character who constantly backstabs the party. But that doesn't mean the table should feel obligated to. If he's ruining the fun for everybody else, and the PCs feel that he's more detriment to their goals than help, then it's not right to assume that his PvP is okay while their retaliatory PvP is not.

My problem lies with this lies in the fact that it is assumed this this is the norm . I have had thieves steal from my barbarian I proceeded to chase down and attack said thief Neither of us was seen as out of character our evil. FOr a larger example at my local club about 20-40 people i have never seen nor heard of PvP being OOC bullying though I suppose it probably has happened. All im saying is give this guy a chance , it sounds like he/she is a new player and may not understand why the occultist might create tension in the group and just thinks it a cool character concept.

Segev
2016-01-05, 04:52 PM
I am unsure if it's the "norm," but it is what I see most commonly in anecdotes that are shared. This is likely a skewed sample, as a fair number of the tales come in the form of "how do I fix this?" kinds of threads, wherein the poster doesn't seem to realize why what is happening is causing problems or what his potential solutions are.

If you're not familiar with those kinds of threads, you'd be amazed how many people seem to need to be told that they have a right to speak up OOC, to demand equal application of whatever social convention applies at the table (e.g. either protection from PvP or the right to PvP right back), or even to decide to walk away.

"No game is better than a bad game" is a near-mantra around here for a reason: some people really need to hear it multiple times before it sinks in.

anti-ninja
2016-01-05, 05:06 PM
d. This is likely a skewed sample, as a fair number of the tales come in the form of "how do I fix this?" kinds of threads, wherein the poster doesn't seem to realize why what is happening is causing problems or what his potential solutions are. This is my problem while I have lurked on many a thread They are , as you did point out a skewed sample since your test group is made up of people looking for advice for how to deal with bad PvP.
If you're not familiar with those kinds of threads, you'd be amazed how many people seem to need to be told that they have a right to speak up OOC, to demand equal application of whatever social convention applies at the table (e.g. either protection from PvP or the right to PvP right back), or even to decide to walk away.
i am familier as I have lurked on many a thread about this topic, let me clarify i don't think the whole thief steals from barbarian barbarian is evil for fighting back is justified . Both players deserve the right to PvP not just the thief . Also if I zm dming said game the thief better have a legit reason to steal. I do think people have the right to speak up if they are not having fun with the situation I just think that the frequency of bad enjoyable PvP experiences is overinflated.

Faily
2016-01-05, 07:02 PM
Thing is, it's not really a question of wether an action is evil or not, it is about group dynamic and what is best for all players involved.

A player has already stated that for him it will be a problem to introduce this character; it messes with the current group dynamic and is a direct challenge to his character. As a GM, I might tell the new player that while the Occultist character is a neat idea, this is not the best time to play it because it doesn't fit with the rest of the group, and probably suggest that he can play the Occultist for the next adventure (and that the others can then make characters that meshes well with that kind of PC).

I play with friends. Always have and always will. And still things can get kinda sour if someone brings in a character that does not work well with the rest of the group... like a Paladin when the party is Neutral Douchebag with some Evil tendencies (or vice-versa).

Sometimes you just gotta put aside that neat idea for the sake of the group. I don't regret the times I've done so myself as a player, or advised players to do it.

anti-ninja
2016-01-05, 08:09 PM
The DM has given a green light on PvP if its based of off IC interaction, but i kinda feel it might leave a sour taste for the new guy. This is something I feel everyone is missing the dm has said PvP is fine, there is no indication that anyone in the group has problems with this except a fear that the new guy might not like that. So maybe the OP should just ask the new guy how he feels about PvP before the session starts ,if he doesn't like the idea then he should roll up anew character but if hes fine with it why not just roll with it? That seems better to me then pressuring hi to change his character immediately .

Quertus
2016-01-05, 08:35 PM
Also if I zm dming said game the thief better have a legit reason to steal. I do think people have the right to speak up if they are not having fun with the situation I just think that the frequency of bad enjoyable PvP experiences is overinflated.

Thief: Because I get xp for it - isn't that why we slaughtered the goblins to a man (and their women, and their children, and their little dog, too)?

I'm not sure how many hundred characters I've seen die to PvP in RPGs in the many groups I've been in over the years (several of the groups had players who didn't get along IRL, and carried it over into the game), but it has almost always been disruptive, and never added anything to the experience. Heck, if all the attempts to kill my signature character had been successful, he'd have been so many different characters with no cohesive story that none of their stories would have been worth telling.

And most campaigns lose cohesiveness when none of the original characters make it from the beginning to the end.

But, if you're just getting together with your friends, to kill as much **** as possible, for XP and imaginary treasure, and don't care about cohesive stories, team play, or character development, and everybody is down with it, then I guess there's nothing wrong with killing each other.

goto124
2016-01-06, 12:21 AM
But, if you're just getting together with your friends, to kill as much **** as possible, for XP and imaginary treasure, and don't care about cohesive stories, team play, or character development, and everybody is down with it, then I guess there's nothing wrong with killing each other.

We have Paranoia for that!

anti-ninja
2016-01-06, 03:42 PM
But, if you're just getting together with your friends, to kill as much **** as possible, for XP and imaginary treasure, and don't care about cohesive stories, team play, or character development, and everybody is down with it, then I guess there's nothing wrong with killing each other. PvP if done right leads to character development , and no I don't get together just to kill **** , PvP raely has occurred i my games al Ii said is that the world when it did.

Quertus
2016-01-07, 12:38 AM
PvP if done right leads to character development

If he's dead, he can't learn nothin'. Not much room for development.

anti-ninja
2016-01-07, 03:01 PM
If he's dead, he can't learn nothin'. Not much room for development. because ever instance of PvP end in death ...right.

AMFV
2016-01-07, 03:07 PM
Thief: Because I get xp for it - isn't that why we slaughtered the goblins to a man (and their women, and their children, and their little dog, too)?

That depends entirely on what system you're working in. Very few systems give XP for killing innocent civilians (none that I'm aware of actually, except for the occasional sacrifice/corruption system, and if you're sacrificing innocents that's the type of game you're in)



I'm not sure how many hundred characters I've seen die to PvP in RPGs in the many groups I've been in over the years (several of the groups had players who didn't get along IRL, and carried it over into the game), but it has almost always been disruptive, and never added anything to the experience. Heck, if all the attempts to kill my signature character had been successful, he'd have been so many different characters with no cohesive story that none of their stories would have been worth telling.

Yes, IRL disputes are disruptive, but that's a completely different type of experience. That's not related to PvP in any real sense, it may manifest in PvP, but it could manifest anywhere else.



And most campaigns lose cohesiveness when none of the original characters make it from the beginning to the end.


Only if character development is the focus of the roleplay... if it's a story based roleplay, then certainly that could be different.



But, if you're just getting together with your friends, to kill as much **** as possible, for XP and imaginary treasure, and don't care about cohesive stories, team play, or character development, and everybody is down with it, then I guess there's nothing wrong with killing each other.

I really like how you completely insult and devalue a playstyle that's slightly different from your own. There's no reason that a game that is combat focused needs to be any less involved or deep than another one. PvP doesn't necessarily decrease or even alter character development, neither is really related

RickAllison
2016-01-07, 05:50 PM
PvP should always invite character development. I have had it occur twice, once as a player and once as a GM.

As a player, the PvP was between my character, basically LG but who was willing to obey the spirit of the law rather than the letter (i.e. vigilantism), and a character who was a career con-man and criminal leader. We were preparing to hijack a shipment of silver, which my character would have accepted if all had gone to the party to further the fight against the supernaturals, but the criminal planned to take the majority to fund his criminal enterprises; character development ensued, and my character anonymously reports his crime. Later on, I pepper sprayed his criminal enforcer henchman because he tried to kill someone I was trying to capture alive (he had earlier blew the head off an innocent bystander). Suffice to say, the two tried to ambush me, my dogs ripped out the throat of the enforcer, and my character put a bullet between the eyes of the con-man when it was apparent he would never be brought to justice. Took my character from a rancher-professor to a man haunted by his actions pursuing the Vigil, great fuel for angst, which might be a potential solution for the troubles between party members.

As a GM, we had a situation very similar to that of the Occultist and Paladin. It was Star Wars and we had an Imperial archaeologist who desired the priceless artifact held by the party members. The first session saw him tied up by the party, which played out as a great distraction for the climactic battle with a Gamorrean. The second session saw him sneaking off from the group to try and steal the artifact while everyone else got into trouble on their own; he recruited a cloaked figure, really an Inquisitor, to break into the ship and then got the artifact stolen by the figure. By the third session, our assassin tried to kill him in revenge, but was stopped by the rest of the party. He was put on trial before everyone to try and explain his actions, but was resolute in his dedication to the Empire; he was then executed. This did not particularly help with character development, but was fantastic for plot development. If you can get the oddball onto your side and could keep his alignment hidden long enough, you could use the Occultist to further some plot hook (maybe unleashing some horrible demon), then have the Occultist see the destruction and desire to rectify his wrongs. Boom, plot development, character development, everything is right in the world.

anti-ninja
2016-01-07, 08:25 PM
As a player, the PvP was between my character, basically LG but who was willing to obey the spirit of the law rather than the letter (i.e. vigilantism), and a character who was a career con-man and criminal leader. We were preparing to hijack a shipment of silver, which my character would have accepted if all had gone to the party to further the fight against the supernaturals, but the criminal planned to take the majority to fund his criminal enterprises; character development ensued, and my character anonymously reports his crime. Later on, I pepper sprayed his criminal enforcer henchman because he tried to kill someone I was trying to capture alive (he had earlier blew the head off an innocent bystander). Suffice to say, the two tried to ambush me, my dogs ripped out the throat of the enforcer, and my character put a bullet between the eyes of the con-man when it was apparent he would never be brought to justice. Took my character from a rancher-professor to a man haunted by his actions pursuing the Vigil, great fuel for angst, which might be a potential solution for the troubles between party members.
see this is exactly what i'm talking about

Quertus
2016-01-08, 12:09 PM
because ever instance of PvP end in death ...right.


see this is exactly what i'm talking about

Confused. PvP ended in death. Maybe the LG character had character growth, but the other two characters just died. No character growth there.


I really like how you completely insult and devalue a playstyle that's slightly different from your own. There's no reason that a game that is combat focused needs to be any less involved or deep than another one. PvP doesn't necessarily decrease or even alter character development, neither is really related

Sorry, I apparently didn't explain that well, then. I was trying to differentiate wargaming - which I love - and role-playing - which I love. But walking into an rpg tea party with a cowboys and Indians PvP mindset just doesn't sound productive. If everyone at the tea party is cool with it, then have fun; otherwise, seems to me like it's best to leave the fake blood back in your room, and save it for the next game.

That is, just as most tea parties have a different underlying motivation / goal / method / drive than cowboys and Indians, I find that PvP inhibits the feng-shui of rpgs.

But, again, being dead usually greatly detracts from character development. I'd say that less than 1% of my characters have experienced postmortem character development*; ymmv.


Yes, IRL disputes are disruptive, but that's a completely different type of experience. That's not related to PvP in any real sense, it may manifest in PvP, but it could manifest anywhere else.

Only if character development is the focus of the roleplay... if it's a story based roleplay, then certainly that could be different.

If the characters in LotR had broken out into PvP over their differences (completely understandably, even without the ring's corrupting influence), and their characters replaced repeatedly over the course of the trilogy (because no player got to play fewer than 20 different characters with all the PvP), it would have been a very different story. My bias is that it would have been a much worse story. My bias, based on my experiences (which include but are not limited to problems IRL obviously spilling over into the game) is that PvP has never contributed positively to a story I've played in.

In fact, I'm having a hard time picturing what kind of story would benefit by having none of the characters survive into act 2.

* 2% if you count agama, I suppose.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 02:19 PM
Confused. PvP ended in death. Maybe the LG character had character growth, but the other two characters just died. No character growth there.

You're mistaken, death is the ultimate growth for a character. The end of a story is the most significant part in terms of saying what it was about. I mean look at Boromir, he died heroically, fighting Orcs, trying to save the ring. If say, he'd died a few pages earlier, tripping on a rock, then he wouldn't be remembered as a hero, just as a villainous traitor. The end of a character's story is incredibly significant, if they die from betrayal, that means a lot, that is their story. Now of course, if that's not a story that people want told with their characters this is a problem.



Sorry, I apparently didn't explain that well, then. I was trying to differentiate wargaming - which I love - and role-playing - which I love. But walking into an rpg tea party with a cowboys and Indians PvP mindset just doesn't sound productive. If everyone at the tea party is cool with it, then have fun; otherwise, seems to me like it's best to leave the fake blood back in your room, and save it for the next game.

That is, just as most tea parties have a different underlying motivation / goal / method / drive than cowboys and Indians, I find that PvP inhibits the feng-shui of rpgs.


I don't think that they're necessarily in conflict. Roleplaying is about stories. A Cowboys and Indians mindset is good, if that's the storyline. If it's not it could be bad (although there is something to be said for having a story where a character is mistaken about what sort of story they're in, Don Quixote after all is famous for just that.) Yes, in a roleplaying tea party, that wouldn't work well, in most cases, but I don't think it's inherently a poor choice.




But, again, being dead usually greatly detracts from character development. I'd say that less than 1% of my characters have experienced postmortem character development*; ymmv.

Well that's something you can certainly work on. :P



If the characters in LotR had broken out into PvP over their differences (completely understandably, even without the ring's corrupting influence), and their characters replaced repeatedly over the course of the trilogy (because no player got to play fewer than 20 different characters with all the PvP), it would have been a very different story. My bias is that it would have been a much worse story. My bias, based on my experiences (which include but are not limited to problems IRL obviously spilling over into the game) is that PvP has never contributed positively to a story I've played in.

In fact, I'm having a hard time picturing what kind of story would benefit by having none of the characters survive into act 2.

* 2% if you count agama, I suppose.

Band of Brothers, Game of Thrones, The Pacific, The Halloween Series are all examples of stories where character death is frequent and common. It can definitely create a different kind of story, and a different kind of tension. I mean, even in LoTR there's one of the most significant examples of practical PvP with Boromir, who would have killed if he could, and many disagreements.

The thing is that lethal PvP is only suitable in a game in which both PvP is acceptable, and high lethality is acceptable. Those tend to be rarer, and fairly rare in conjunction. There are certainly games based around that sort of thing. And those wouldn't necessarily have any less story. Any more than Game of Thrones has less story than, Scions of Shannara (for example), the level of lethality doesn't remove or add significantly to the story. It creates a different sort of story.

Certainly in a horror story having character death be common is acceptable, in a dungeon crawling story it may be. In Romance Adventure, it becomes less so. The big issue is if player or DM expectations are different in this regard.

Aspiration
2016-01-08, 11:05 PM
My first campaign was very much messed up my a situation like this. New player joined without understanding party dynamics, hir character was a Chaotic "Neutral" sociopath who did stuff like waltz up to people and talk about burning down their village or torturing them to death as if this was diplomacy, and such was the end of any meaningful interaction with NPCs. It was a very not-PvP campaign as far as anyone seemed to be able to tell, so we were left shrugging and having no way to rationalize IC "we haven't killed this person because of the PC tag over their head". Player was super-attached to the character, character could not change meaningfully while being consistent.

So yeah. I totally see the cleric's side of this. He doesn't want that to happen and doesn't feel comfortable that it won't.

Figure out why the occultist's player wants to use that character, and which LG-unfriendly aspects need to be kept. Sit both players down and talk about it. Figure out stuff like if the occultist would be okay with being redeemed and consequently refluffed or rebuilt. Like whether the cleric has an idea for conditions under which they'd work together. And make sure they both understand that if the occultist goes and/or stays too far out of line, PvP is totally on the table and is absolutely fair play on the cleric's fault. Because abusing the cooperation of others to make the game less fun for them is not cool.

For all the people saying the newbie has equal rights - Yes, as a player in the game. It sounds like he hasn't been actually incorporated into the game yet. No one has a right to be included in someone else's game if they make it less fun for everyone else, imo.
If everybody but the cleric's player would love to have the occultist in the party and/or the occultist's player in the game, great. Then maybe that counteracts the cleric's opinion, and that player should try to compromise. But if everyone is happy with the game as is, and would prefer the party without the occultist and/or accompanying conflict... they have no obligation to include Newbie or that character. Newbie is being invited into the game, on the condition that he not make it unfun for other players. This seems totally fair to me. Just like, while murderhoboing is fun for some people, an in-depth political campaign doesn't need to adjust to fit a murderhobo who joins if the other players prefer it as is.

And yeah, "don't play a necromancer without a good explanation" is not the same thing as "you have to play a healbot with crafting feats, so we can do all the cool stuff". It is not forcing a player into one specific role. For an alternate angle to think about it, what if Newbie's occultist did die, for whatever reason? Is it forcing him to not have fun if he's asked to reroll a different character if he can't be raised, instead of just sticking a "the Second" after the same character's name? If he would have to play a different character after being killed by the cleric, why not just skip that step and start with the different character? It's just as much requiring a different character.

anti-ninja
2016-01-09, 11:51 AM
So yeah. I totally see the cleric's side of this. He doesn't want that to happen and doesn't feel comfortable that it won't.
which is why the cleric has the right to attempt to kill said newbie. But I think an assumption of malice is being mad about the newbie here . He's new to D&D doesn't know the social convention of the game, saw a class that looked cool and thought hey this would be fun? In all likelihood hes not going into this as attempt to ruin the other players game he probably just thinks the occultist sounds fun.

Pex
2016-01-09, 01:55 PM
which is why the cleric has the right to attempt to kill said newbie. But I think an assumption of malice is being mad about the newbie here . He's new to D&D doesn't know the social convention of the game, saw a class that looked cool and thought hey this would be fun? In all likelihood hes not going into this as attempt to ruin the other players game he probably just thinks the occultist sounds fun.

Then he should be told the character he wants to play will be disruptive to the current game climate and play something else that is more appropriate. It could even be the same class, just a different perspective on things and class feature choices.

anti-ninja
2016-01-09, 04:53 PM
Then he should be told the character he wants to play will be disruptive to the current game climate and play something else that is more appropriate. It could even be the same class, just a different perspective on things and class feature choices. Once again the only thing expressed by the OP is that he fears the newbie will react badly to PvP. So maybe the newbie should be asked his opinion on PvP before forcing him to change class or concept.

goto124
2016-01-09, 11:09 PM
But I think an assumption of malice is being mad about the newbie here . He's new to D&D doesn't know the social convention of the game, saw a class that looked cool and thought hey this would be fun? In all likelihood hes not going into this as attempt to ruin the other players game he probably just thinks the occultist sounds fun.

Even if we're not afraid of outright malice, there is still the issue of incompetence. He doesn't have to be trying in order to ruin an entire group's fun - he just has to be careless/clueless/etc, which is highly likely with a new player.

Esprit15
2016-01-10, 08:23 PM
Talk to the Cleric player, see what is permissible and what is not. Let them both hash things out before the game. It lets the players bond a little bit so if things do come to blows there are fewer feelings of exclusion, and it means they can work out reasons themselves rather than have the DM have to act as mediator.