Tedious Infighting: Dawn of Justice

[Catullus64]

In a recent session of my friend’s campaign, our party confronted the main villain of the story. Our party had been racing him to find an ancient magic library full of dark knowledge, and he was waiting for us there. Since my character has an ugly personal history with him, I attacked on sight. We fought for a few rounds, until the villain called for a truce. During the ensuing conversation, several major revelations were made:
• This villain had been living in disguise for the past 500 years as the commander of a Night’s Watch-style knightly order, an order to which our Paladin and Ranger belong. This commander was a personal friend and mentor to both of them.
• While we were busy racing to find the ancient magical library at which this showdown takes place, the villain was able to effect a coup in one of the major kingdoms, and begin a civil war in another.
• The villain has successfully pinned all the blame for most of his recent crimes on us, particularly me, since I used to be a lieutenant of the fallen dictator whom the villain is seeking to resurrect. An elite death squad is currently en route to apprehend us.

Now, while we have not confirmed any of these things to be true, if I know my DM they probably all are. The villain, in classic form, now makes an offer to join forces, and to help him conquer the world. We (the party) briefly conference via telepathic bond, and agree to reject his offer and attack… and as soon as we roll for initiative again, the Paladin and the Warlock turn on us and side with the villain. That’s where our most recent session ended. Now, I personally despise party infighting, but the players behind the Paladin and Warlock are resolute that this is what their characters would do. Is there any good way to deal with this that won’t end in us killing each other? I’m reasonably confident that the remaining loyal party members (Monk, Ranger, Bard, and me, a Wizard) can take them if it comes to that (the Paladin and the villain both took some bad hits in the previous fight, and the initiative generally favors our side), but would it be better to run away? Even if we defeat them without killing them, I don’t see how this does anything but breed hostility in the group.

[MrMcBobb]

Murder them. If they insist on saying "It's what our character's would do" then murder them.

However! Before next session have a chat with them and ask if their characters (Paladin in particular) would really do that. It sounds like the big villain has done some pretty shady **** to get a civil war started under the guise of a coup. I know the BBEG is an old ally of those two but surely this corruption of their former friend isn't worth siding with? If you're friend went dark-side and starting stamping on homeless people for kicks you wouldn't just join him, you'd hand him in to the authorities.

Look at the relationship between Daredevil and Stick for a good example. Stick taught Daredevil everything he knows and nurtured and helped him as a young boy. However, Stick's methods are too brutal and bloody for Daredevil so they go their separate ways in the end.

Perhaps the Paladin and Ranger will think twice about straight up killing their former master so maybe they'll side with you on the condition you leave their old friend alive and you hand him in to the authorities instead (or maybe one of you sneaks off after the fight and murders him anyway while he's in prison, causing party tension later on when they find out)

[Dr.Samurai]

Even if we defeat them without killing them, I don’t see how this does anything but breed hostility in the group.
A couple of things...

I would imagine that the players in question would have to retire their characters after this no? I'm not sure how the group could continue playing together with the party divided and working contrary to each other. So even if you don't kill the characters, I suspect they'd become NPCs after this. Otherwise, how would you see it resolving?

Secondly, there shouldn't be hostility. The players of the turncoats have to understand the actions they've taken, and the group has to be okay with the outcome. You went there to defeat the BBEG. You agreed to do just that before the betrayal. So the players know exactly what they're getting into by switching sides. If you do kill them, they shouldn't be upset. They are plying true to their characters and suffered the consequences. If they survive, then they are handed over to the DM for control and the players roll up new characters.

I don't see a need for hostility in the group, unless the two players that switched sides are going to strong to try and disrupt everything. They made their choice. Either die or lose your character to the DM. Either way, roll a new one.

[jaappleton]

There's quite a few ways to do this. And its simultaneously what makes D&D both the best and sometimes the worst game there is.

1. They're playing their characters fully, instead of metagaming based on the situation. In my eyes, that's commendable.

2. D&D can lead to characters having different motivations. It seems like you're near the end of this tale of your particular campaign. So... Hey, ride it out.

3. While it's fairly easy to look at this scenario and say, "Hey, this is stupid, we're on the same team!", its also easy to see why they'd follow their mentor.

Honestly...? Ride it out. Fight 'em. Show no mercy. Don't run, because you won't get far.

BUT! If you strike down the Paladin, and then the player cries about it... Tell him to stick it. You can't 'play your character' and then cry when your own actions lead to your death.

[gfishfunk]

Kill them dead.

They should not have hard feelings. This was a player decision. All 'my character would do this' decisions are player decisions. All of them. You can always justify yourself one way or another, always.

Either you and your team will die (possible) or they will (also possible) or both (which is kind of funny). Personally, I think they should die, as they disagreed with the party consensus and your characters should not be punished for this. The moment they sided against your party, they gambled with the livability of their characters.

Personally, the moment they decided to turn on the group, I would have had them push their character sheets over to me as the DM and have them work on rolling up new characters.

[jaappleton]

Kill them dead.

They should not have hard feelings. This was a player decision. All 'my character would do this' decisions are player decisions. All of them. You can always justify yourself one way or another, always.

Either you and your team will die (possible) or they will (also possible) or both (which is kind of funny). Personally, I think they should die, as they disagreed with the party consensus and your characters should not be punished for this. The moment they sided against your party, they gambled with the livability of their characters.

Personally, the moment they decided to turn on the group, I would have had them push their character sheets over to me as the DM and have them work on rolling up new characters.

I agree with all of this except the last line. As DM, I'd let them play out the fight, and if they somehow survived (The 'good team' flees, or some other circumstance where they're still enemies), then the sheets and characters become NPCs under my control. Still almost the same mindset of how to handle this.

[Spellbreaker26]

I agree with all of this except the last line. As DM, I'd let them play out the fight, and if they somehow survived (The 'good team' flees, or some other circumstance where they're still enemies), then the sheets and characters become NPCs under my control. Still almost the same mindset of how to handle this.

Agreed. If they turn on the party for a legitimate reason, then at the very least they should get to play out the last stand.

[Sigreid]

Have you tried in character pointing out to the paladin that siding with a maniac to resurrect a tyrant to conquer the world is probably an oath violation? Ask him what's more important, his old friend, or his ideals.

[Herobizkit]

Knock them all out. It's the easiest solution. Means you can't just magically nuke them - you'll have to take them out via melee.

[Drackolus]

Dunno. What would YOUR characters do? :smallamused:
Most of mine would probably try to knock them out. That said, I agree with the consensus that dumb adventurers die. It's number 1 in every adventuring handbook, and it's not anyone's fault but theirs if they chose to disbelieve it. I mean, I'm not sure what they expect to happen when they literally chose to make the objective of the main quest to kill them.
It's dramatic enough, I suppose. I like dramatic.
Out of curiosity, what pact/oath are they? And for the warlock, is the patron a specific entity?

[Simian]

In a recent session of my friend’s campaign, our party confronted the main villain of the story. Our party had been racing him to find an ancient magic library full of dark knowledge, and he was waiting for us there. Since my character has an ugly personal history with him, I attacked on sight. We fought for a few rounds, until the villain called for a truce. During the ensuing conversation, several major revelations were made:
• This villain had been living in disguise for the past 500 years as the commander of a Night’s Watch-style knightly order, an order to which our Paladin and Ranger belong. This commander was a personal friend and mentor to both of them.
• While we were busy racing to find the ancient magical library at which this showdown takes place, the villain was able to effect a coup in one of the major kingdoms, and begin a civil war in another.
• The villain has successfully pinned all the blame for most of his recent crimes on us, particularly me, since I used to be a lieutenant of the fallen dictator whom the villain is seeking to resurrect. An elite death squad is currently en route to apprehend us.

Now, while we have not confirmed any of these things to be true, if I know my DM they probably all are. The villain, in classic form, now makes an offer to join forces, and to help him conquer the world. We (the party) briefly conference via telepathic bond, and agree to reject his offer and attack… and as soon as we roll for initiative again, the Paladin and the Warlock turn on us and side with the villain. That’s where our most recent session ended. Now, I personally despise party infighting, but the players behind the Paladin and Warlock are resolute that this is what their characters would do. Is there any good way to deal with this that won’t end in us killing each other? I’m reasonably confident that the remaining loyal party members (Monk, Ranger, Bard, and me, a Wizard) can take them if it comes to that (the Paladin and the villain both took some bad hits in the previous fight, and the initiative generally favors our side), but would it be better to run away? Even if we defeat them without killing them, I don’t see how this does anything but breed hostility in the group.

I'm confused, you said the Paladin and the Ranger were mentored by the villain, why did the warlock switch sides and the ranger stick with the party? How did the warlock justify his changing sides?

[War_lord]

And isn't the Paladin now breaking his oath?

But yeah, kill em. If they get salty "well you betrayed my character, so this is what my character would do if their friend betrayed them".

[Vaz]

In a recent session of my friend’s campaign, our party confronted the main villain of the story. Our party had been racing him to find an ancient magic library full of dark knowledge, and he was waiting for us there. Since my character has an ugly personal history with him, I attacked on sight. We fought for a few rounds, until the villain called for a truce. During the ensuing conversation, several major revelations were made:
• This villain had been living in disguise for the past 500 years as the commander of a Night’s Watch-style knightly order, an order to which our Paladin and Ranger belong. This commander was a personal friend and mentor to both of them.
• While we were busy racing to find the ancient magical library at which this showdown takes place, the villain was able to effect a coup in one of the major kingdoms, and begin a civil war in another.
• The villain has successfully pinned all the blame for most of his recent crimes on us, particularly me, since I used to be a lieutenant of the fallen dictator whom the villain is seeking to resurrect. An elite death squad is currently en route to apprehend us.
if your background is so thorny, the question is why you agreed to the truce in the first place to talk given all of the background. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it was you who attacked. You could have continued to attack.

Now, while we have not confirmed any of these things to be true, if I know my DM they probably all are. The villain, in classic form, now makes an offer to join forces, and to help him conquer the world. We (the party) briefly conference via telepathic bond, and agree to reject his offer and attack… and as soon as we roll for initiative again, the Paladin and the Warlock turn on us and side with the villain. That’s where our most recent session ended. Now, I personally despise party infighting, but the players behind the Paladin and Warlock are resolute that this is what their characters would do. Is there any good way to deal with this that won’t end in us killing each other? I’m reasonably confident that the remaining loyal party members (Monk, Ranger, Bard, and me, a Wizard) can take them if it comes to that (the Paladin and the villain both took some bad hits in the previous fight, and the initiative generally favors our side), but would it be better to run away? Even if we defeat them without killing them, I don’t see how this does anything but breed hostility in the group.[/QUOTE]

Others are making the questions over what the Paladin's Oath consists of and stating that it wouldn't be within character to break his oaths. I disagree; we don't know what that Oath was, or the interpretation of it. Oath of Devotion could easily be applied to being devoted to the cause of his Knightly Order and the Commander. I also disagree because I can guarantee that whoever came up with character knows their character better than we do.

Also, you're questioning the infighting. What would your character do in this situation? He has been betrayed and framed by his former "commander", and has now turned two of his "friends" or at least adventuring party. How friendly these "friends" are, and how much in search of vengeance you are will determine the events that go on. This is something that if you are worried about breeding hostility, you need to talk with the players. The players who turned know that there are going to be consequences, either PvP, or RP.

It would be unfair for a DM to say "sweet, you guys are now rolling new characters up for next session" unless you attack. You're also fighting against a BBEG who would have either been a challenge for 6 of you, but is now facing only 4 of you AND has 2 wounded former allies. I'd objectively say that the odds are not in your favour, and that you are surprised against their decision.

[RSP]

My biggest question is: why did the Pally and Warlock agree with the party in the first place? I can see a Warlock possibly going for the betrayal, but not so much a Pally: even the Oaths being different than LG from past editions, the Pally class is still based on conviction (which is the opposite of agreeing to one thing and immediately going against that agreement to kill companions). If they thought it was bad or wrong to kill the BBEG, why didn't they argue for this in the telepathy session?

Playing your character is fine and good, but I don't see this particular tactic as anything other than Evil and I don't see any of the PHB Oaths being kosher with this tactic. Devotion may side with their commander but they wouldn't try to trick their friends/companions in doing so. Vengeance would chose which side was more evil and attack it mercilessly. Ancients I don't really see a reason to side with the BBEG, though admittedly we have little details.

Maybe it's one of the UA Oaths or something homebrew, but it still sounds shady enough that the Players have no cause to complain if their PCs end up dead.

Now, had they stated their stance in the group discussion and offered valid reasons why they wouldn't stand by and watch their mentor/commander be killed, that would be a different story.

But it doesn't sound like that's the case. I don't see a problem forcibly retiring the Pally and Warlock.

[Catullus64]

Thanks all for the advice. I've talked over some of the proposed solutions with the DM and some of the other players. The Paladin player says she'll gladly turn over her character to the DM and roll up a new one, and the DM has said he'll likely revoke her Paladin powers for this, not only for the betrayal, but to represent how badly shaken her moral convictions are by this revelation. Haven't talked to the Warlock player yet, but she's a reasonable sort and will probably also agree.

That being settled, it's time to figure out how to beat them... :smallbiggrin:

For those who asked, the Paladin is Vengeance and the Warlock is Archfey. (In the setting, Fey are literal stars, and the Warlock is an astronomer turned pirate, so the turncoat behavior is entirely consonant with her established character.)

[jaappleton]

Thanks all for the advice. I've talked over some of the proposed solutions with the DM and some of the other players. The Paladin player says she'll gladly turn over her character to the DM and roll up a new one, and the DM has said he'll likely revoke her Paladin powers for this, not only for the betrayal, but to represent how badly shaken her moral convictions are by this revelation. Haven't talked to the Warlock player yet, but she's a reasonable sort and will probably also agree.

That being settled, it's time to figure out how to beat them... :smallbiggrin:

For those who asked, the Paladin is Vengeance and the Warlock is Archfey. (In the setting, Fey are literal stars, and the Warlock is an astronomer turned pirate, so the turncoat behavior is entirely consonant with her established character.)

First, it's good to hear that everyone's pretty much on board with how it should be handled. That's a good thing, and honestly, that was your biggest hurdle. So thumbs up! :smallbiggrin:

Well if the Paladin is about to be stripped of his power, that makes him... Nothing. He's worse than a Fighter. No Aura, no spells, no Divine Smite, no Channel Divinity. He's got 2 attacks, and that's it. Cast Hold Person and slit his throat for his treachery. Of course.... Its possible he comes to his senses midway through the battle, and realizes this is a mistake. That could actually be a great RP moment, and lead to a quest of redemption. Possibly even a change of Oath!

So that leaves the Archfey. And honestly? They're tough at higher levels. Greater Invisibility alone is enough to give fits. So try to get your hands on Faerie Fire someway if you can. They're slippery, they're elusive, they have a pretty darn good spell list. Lock 'em down, and focus fire.

[JackPhoenix]

Well if the Paladin is about to be stripped of his power, that makes him... Nothing. He's worse than a Fighter. No Aura, no spells, no Divine Smite, no Channel Divinity. He's got 2 attacks, and that's it. Cast Hold Person and slit his throat for his treachery. Of course.... Its possible he comes to his senses midway through the battle, and realizes this is a mistake. That could actually be a great RP moment, and lead to a quest of redemption. Possibly even a change of Oath!

Actually, only Oath abilities are dependant on the oath tenets. Spellcasting and divine smite are a thing before the paladin even chooses his subclass.... note how Oathkeepers still keep all base class abilities.

[Unoriginal]

Something I don't get is why is the paladin supporting the bad guy?

Deceiving people by pretending to be a good Paladin leader shouldn't earn them any loyalty, nor should it shake the actual Paladins' faith.

[War_lord]

My personal theory is that some players will always take options like this, even when it makes no sense, because when this sort of thing happens in a Video Game and the BBEG is like "I am your quest giver, join me and together we will rule the world!", you never actually have the option to say "ok, sounds like a plan", so it's something they do just because they can.

Still, it's much worse then the majority of the party does it then in this situation.

[Wymmerdann]

On my reading, almost all commenters have ignored the fact that the siuation is factually murky, and two characters [and possibly their players] have interpreted the situation very differently from the original poster.

It seems more than possible that the Paladin and Warlock are pretty justified in their actions, and that their path ends up being the right one [someone's framed the Knight Commander, or his actions are justified, it's not really clear just how much has been proven and how much to OP has inferred].

We just don't have enough information, and DM's are notoriously tricksy. It seems he's fabricated a situation of PvP, and basically aimed the entire campaign at this point based on character backgrounds.

Kill em, don't kill em, play your character to the hilt and enjoy this wacky ride your DM is on [and factor that ride into deciding whether to ride the train again.]

[Spellbreaker26]

On my reading, almost all commenters have ignored the fact that the siuation is factually murky, and two characters [and possibly their players] have interpreted the situation very differently from the original poster.

It seems more than possible that the Paladin and Warlock are pretty justified in their actions, and that their path ends up being the right one [someone's framed the Knight Commander, or his actions are justified, it's not really clear just how much has been proven and how much to OP has inferred].

We just don't have enough information, and DM's are notoriously tricksy. It seems he's fabricated a situation of PvP, and basically aimed the entire campaign at this point based on character backgrounds.


That seems unfair. The problem wasn't just that they sided with this man, it was that they stabbed the party in the back. They chose to not just switch sides, but to actively betray the party.

A DM putting a choice in his game is an opportunity for the party to debate, and is not fabricating a situation of PvP.

[Addaran]

Now, while we have not confirmed any of these things to be true, if I know my DM they probably all are. The villain, in classic form, now makes an offer to join forces, and to help him conquer the world. We (the party) briefly conference via telepathic bond, and agree to reject his offer and attack… and as soon as we roll for initiative again, the Paladin and the Warlock turn on us and side with the villain. That’s where our most recent session ended.

Agree as in everyone voted for attacking the main villain or as in the majority wanted to attack the main villain?

It is pretty weird if the paladin lied about wanting to attack the main villain then turned on the PCs. Unless maybe he had some reason to think other PC would mind control him or one-shot sneak attack him before he gets to join the main villain.


All in all, seems like it's maybe the end of the campaign or at least of the arc. Just act like your character would and most probably, the DM will start a new campaign after that (with the result changing the setting) or will replace the side that lose with new characters for the winning team.

[jaappleton]

Actually, only Oath abilities are dependant on the oath tenets. Spellcasting and divine smite are a thing before the paladin even chooses his subclass.... note how Oathkeepers still keep all base class abilities.

Good point. Forgot about that.