Conflict of Characters

[krulin]

Okay, so forgive me for the wall of text, but this requires a full explanation for you guys to appropriately respond. Thanks, in advance if you make it all the way through this post.

I am playing a Tabaxi (humanoid jaguar) named Rebecca. She is a rogue, thief. She lost her wife 5-10 years ago, not long after they’d been married. As far as Rebecca knows, the death was naturally from disease (I’m leaving it up to the DM if he wants to turn it into a plot point sometime in the future). Rebecca has since been a carefree, enjoy life, sort of Tabaxi. She’s generally hard to anger, doesn’t like to fight if she doesn’t have to, and doesn’t usually kill if she can avoid it.

A good example is, our party started our adventure being stranded in a cave system after being betrayed. We made our way back to the surface quickly. Our exit to the surface was an owlbear den. We tried to sneak out and of course our fighter ruined our stealthy exit. So, my rogue took her surprise round and first actual turn, shooting one of the owlbears. She downed the owlbear, but elected not to have it be a killing blow. The owlbear mom/dad that was still standing went to tend to its mate and we got the heck out of there in the meantime. Rebecca’s view was that we were interlopers in their home and they were just defending it. She wasn’t going to kill them for that.

Flash forward a session and our wizard (who seems to be easily bored), started using prestidigitation to change the color of Rebecca’s fur. Rebecca warned the wizard to stop doing it or there’d be fisticuffs and I echoed her warning to the wizard’s player. I don’t know if my exact words were specific to changing her fur color or if it was to not mess with her. We reached an agreement (or so I thought) and the session continued.

Flash forward another session or two and our wizard used enlarge/reduce on Rebecca for her own amusement. So, Rebecca, now 3-foot-tall and 30 pounds brought out her claws and started a fight. She landed her first blow and the wizard passed her first turn. Rebecca pulled out her daggers and continued her assault. I wanted to make it abundantly clear that the wizards player needed to knock it off and I felt Rebecca would have the same sentiment. Our characters had not known each other long enough to have that kind of relationship where we did stuff like that to each other. The wizard took their kid gloves off and started giving it all they had. Admittedly, I goaded that fight after that until the wizard decided to use fly to run away.

After the session, we had it out, player to player. It was an argument. He thought I’d gone too far and I couldn’t disagree entirely, but I made the point that he and his character had been warned. He thought I’d only meant about the hair color thing. I thought it should be obvious that I didn’t want him messing with any of my character’s physical characteristics without my character’s permission.

The wizard is separated from our party now and I’m at a crossroads on how they’d reconcile their differences. I’m also at a loss on how to roleplay this. We’ve not had player in-fighting before, so this is new for our DM and for us. I don’t think our DM knows quite how to handle it either. Any tips for me or our DM would be much appreciated. Again, sorry for the wall of text.

Edit: I had no intention of killing his character at any point during this.

[Biggstick]

First of all, you can't make non-lethal attacks with ranged weapons. (Knocking a Creature out. PHB pg. 198). So your ranged attack against the target is incapable of putting the target to 0 hp in a non-lethal way. I do understand what your intentions were here though and applaud them.

Second of all, Prestidigitation doesn't allow the Wizard to change the color of your fur. Out of the multitude of things it can do, what it can do regarding color is, "Make a color, small mark, or a symbol appear on an object or a surface for 1 hour." The intent of this spell with color is to mark a surface or object with something small. This is hardly enough to be your entire fur coat. At best, he could put some silly mark on your face that you don't like. I'd bring this up to the DM in regards to what Prestidigitation is actually capable of. (Prestidigitation. PHB pg. 267).

Third of all, Enlarge/Reduce has a saving throw. Did you fail the saving throw? Either way, casting a spell like this without your permission is nearing the realm of PvP. It isn't quite there yet, as the spell doesn't actually prevent you from acting. Sure, it makes you small (or large, whichever way they go), and lowers your damage (or raises it), but it doesn't prevent you from being who you are. By attacking him afterward, you are the one initiating PvP.

Was there any sort of discussion in your Session 0 as to whether PvP will be acceptable? If it was discussed, or wasn't, it sounds like you're uncomfortable with how the game ended up going. You need to bring it up out of character with everyone at the table. If you're not comfortable with that sort of discussion in public, bring it up with just the DM and ask to speak with them separately. You need to be very clear out of character what the things are that are going to set you off in game. It doesn't sound like you were very clear with the other Player, as they seemed to think it was only the Prestidigitation that was bothering you.

Summary; Another PC used Prestidigitation on you in a way you didn't like (which by RAW, they couldn't do what you've described them doing). You told them to not do it anymore, and they do as you ask. They then used a spell on you that doesn't actually prevent you from doing whatever it is that you want. You expected the other Player to know what you were implying when you said don't do it anymore to mean all spells cast on you. You responded to this with PvP. The other Player even passed their turn in this PvP round, and you continued to attack. You need to be clearer outside-of-character what the things you won't tolerate are, as it doesn't seem like the table of Players is capable of reading your mind. To reconcile this, your character needs to get over themself, stop attacking the more trickster type PC's in the party, and make clear to the other Players in and out of character that you won't tolerate any magic being cast on you that isn't a healing or restorative spell. By making it this clear, you will then have grounds to consider PvP the next time something like this happens.

[Beelzebubba]

Wizard needs to apologize for taunting you.
After they do that, you apologize for going for the kill.
Then you shake hands (hand/paw?) and both promise each other not to do it again.

[Clone]

First I should say I've been in a similar issue myself, with a good friend too which made it all the more surprising it happened in the first place.

While I do understand your viewpoint of attacking the Wizard, you responded to unwanted messing with your character with violence. From their standpoint it was "harmless fun" which could have even been taken in a comical sense, after all you said that Rebecca was carefree and hard to anger, who doesn't like to fight if she doesn't have to.

I'm not saying the Wizard was in their right to do whatever they wanted so long as it wasn't threatening to Rebecca, but they may have thought it would have been taken in a more light-hearted manner. When they saw that changing her fur wasn't alright, they respected that.
For the second time, while she did say she didn't want to be something for the wizard to kill their boredom with, she did immediately go towards violence with her claws.
The Wizard, not seemingly taunting you (from what you said), passed their turn and didn't show they wanted to fight.

Then Rebecca took out a knife on someone who wasn't attacking her. Regardless of intent to kill or not, a Rogue coming at a Wizard with a dagger, especially past level 5 (you said the Wizard flew away) is bad news and intimidating. It won't be taken well, especially in the heat of the moment.

This is an out of character issue, 100%. The second it left the table and continued away from it, it became an out of character issue. Before you do anything, make sure you are on good terms with the Wizard's player. That way you can work together to solve the issue easier, and share both your characters' points of view as to why they acted why they did in detail. You don't need to go too deep in your backstory, but talking about it is far more important.

After that, for the in-character make-up, if you believe Rebecca is truly sorry for what she did an idea would be to have her steal or locate a spell scroll for the Wizard which they don't have already.
Nothing fancy, but you're giving something to the Wizard which they didn't have before that they know they can use. Something like the Levitate spell which the Wizard could mess with other people to sedate their boredom would be perfect. After that, its up to the Wizard to apologize to Rebecca in their own way.
Other than that, whats the most in-character way for her to apologize to someone? An awkward apology face-to-face? An apology shown through an action? Thats for you to decide. When you know this, simply do this in character AFTER making sure you and the Wizard's player are on good terms. Once you two know that both players want to solve the issue, you can work together in character to solve it.

Regardless who was in the right or wrong, who went too far or not far enough, player and character issues are never fun and can be stressful. I hope the issue is resolved soon. Hope this helps, good luck!

[sir_argo]

How you handle this is completely by choice. Since everyone has a different opinion, and there is no right or wrong opinion, I'll go ahead and state mine. And for the record Bigstick is right about how the spells work, but I'll not worry about that for now. I'll just proceed with how you guys used the spells.

I look at character interactions in two categories: actions that affect gameplay, and actions that do not.

Changing your character's fur color did not affect gameplay. It's pure roleplaying. If anything, it offers a chance to develop a relationship with the other character... even if that relationship is hatred. I've had games where the other player and I agreed that our characters hate each other, but that was roleplay only. I'd go running across the battlefield to save his character's life just like any other party member, but I get to roleplay out my character saying something like, "God you suck. I'm always having to save your worthless hide!" If I were you, I wouldn't treat him changing the fur-color as a big deal. Now even though I said roleplay-only conflict is fine, there is a caveat that if a player doesn't enjoy certain roleplaying, then it shouldn't be done. I'll give you what I consider the most egregious example. You're in a group that says no Pvp, but roleplay conflict is ok. Another character has his barbarian grope your tabaxi. There is no gameplay issue here, but I'm just going to assume that you as a player would NOT enjoy that roleplaying. Hopefully everyone would agree that if you're not agreeable to that, the other player shouldn't do it. That was an extreme example, but it fits with changing fur color too. If you don't find that roleplay enjoyable, he should respect that.

The second interaction is gameplay. I personally think that every character should work cooperatively when it comes to actions that affect gameplay. It isn't fun to be fighting some monsters and have another player say, "Well, since my character doesn't like you, he's not going to heal you." That's rubbish. And character fighting? I'm totally against it. Character conflict should be roleplay, not gameplay. And this should actually have been discussed in a session 0. There's probably plenty of players that think PvP is great fun. I'm not one of them, and I don't want to join a campaign with players that think it is. When he cast Enlarge/Reduce, he crossed the line, as far as I'm concerned. He escalated the conflict to gameplay, and since the group allows that type of action, they can't complain how you reacted. Should have had a session 0. PvP can literally break up a group, which is why I don't like it.

So what do you do now? I'd suggest you ask the DM for a session 0, even though you're already technically past that. Get the ground rules set. If the group likes PvP and you can't live with it, switch groups. If the group says they don't want any PvP, and the other player has a problem with it... he can switch groups.

(edit)

I should add that if the group says PvP is fine and you really don't want to leave the group, next time his wizard does something to you, kill him.

[Unoriginal]

Alright, there is something I don't understand.

You described your character as being carefree, life-loving, hard to anger, and reluctant to fight to the point that she doesn't even want to kill homicidal creatures like the owlbears.

But when a Wizard is acting jerk and annoys her with magic pranks she attacks said wizard with potentially lethal force?


That's kind of pretty contradictory to me.

[hymer]

Kudos to Biggstick for the rules corrections.

It seems to me that OP escalated too fast, particularly for a character supposedly slow to anger. I suggest something along the lines of "I'm sorry I overreacted, but you really pushed my buttons. I'm trying to have fun, and you're ruining it for me. Can we agree to stop sniping at each other and try to work together?"

[krulin]

Alright, there is something I don't understand.

You described your character as being carefree, life-loving, hard to anger, and reluctant to fight to the point that she doesn't even want to kill homicidal creatures like the owlbears.

But when a Wizard is acting jerk and annoys her with magic pranks she attacks said wizard with potentially lethal force?


That's kind of pretty contradictory to me.

I did say generally hard to anger. Everyone has their touchy spots. I probably took a bit of out of character irritation with it as well seeing as he was kinda derailing the plot and the DM at that point by being overly silly for a while at that point.

The owlbears were just defending their home the same way you or I would. She didn't want to kill them for that.


First of all, you can't make non-lethal attacks with ranged weapons. (Knocking a Creature out. PHB pg. 198). So your ranged attack against the target is incapable of putting the target to 0 hp in a non-lethal way. I do understand what your intentions were here though and applaud them.

I am aware of this. I meant that I had no intention of either not picking him up after the fight or really taking him down that far. I don't think any of my shots were ranged though because Rebecca let her go after she flew away. 60 ft of fly speed allows a rather hasty retreat.


Second of all, Prestidigitation doesn't allow the Wizard to change the color of your fur. Out of the multitude of things it can do, what it can do regarding color is, "Make a color, small mark, or a symbol appear on an object or a surface for 1 hour." The intent of this spell with color is to mark a surface or object with something small. This is hardly enough to be your entire fur coat. At best, he could put some silly mark on your face that you don't like. I'd bring this up to the DM in regards to what Prestidigitation is actually capable of. (Prestidigitation. PHB pg. 267).

I'm aware of this as well. It was more of a thing that was let go by our DM. It wasn't a big deal and it didn't really unbalance the game. Plus I think we were all thinking something along the lines of giving her markings (things like how animals can have spots of different color fur).


Third of all, Enlarge/Reduce has a saving throw. Did you fail the saving throw? Either way, casting a spell like this without your permission is nearing the realm of PvP. It isn't quite there yet, as the spell doesn't actually prevent you from acting. Sure, it makes you small (or large, whichever way they go), and lowers your damage (or raises it), but it doesn't prevent you from being who you are. By attacking him afterward, you are the one initiating PvP.

Yes. Yes I did. How is him casting this not PVP. Granted, it's not an attack spell, but it certainly could have been followed up by one. Granted I did start the actual fight, but I feel like he had more than enough warning from the last time. Granted, I didn't specifically say don't enlarge or shrink me, but I shouldn't have to have a list of things not to do when they're common courtesy not to.


Was there any sort of discussion in your Session 0 as to whether PvP will be acceptable? If it was discussed, or wasn't, it sounds like you're uncomfortable with how the game ended up going. You need to bring it up out of character with everyone at the table. If you're not comfortable with that sort of discussion in public, bring it up with just the DM and ask to speak with them separately. You need to be very clear out of character what the things are that are going to set you off in game. It doesn't sound like you were very clear with the other Player, as they seemed to think it was only the Prestidigitation that was bothering you.

Yes. PVP is allowed in the sense that characters can fight. However, it is a good party so it is understood that we wouldn't fight to the death unless there was some sort of moral event horizon crossed by one of the party members.


To reconcile this, your character needs to get over themself, stop attacking the more trickster type PC's in the party, and make clear to the other Players in and out of character that you won't tolerate any magic being cast on you that isn't a healing or restorative spell. By making it this clear, you will then have grounds to consider PvP the next time something like this happens.

Okay, I'm willing to give you the being more clear part. I did mess that up, albeit unintentionally. But my character needs to get over herself? I'm confused as to how I was high and mighty in this situation.

[Unoriginal]

I did say generally hard to anger. Everyone has their touchy spots. I probably took a bit of out of character irritation with it as well seeing as he was kinda derailing the plot and the DM at that point by being overly silly for a while at that point.

Fair enough, but it's still the equivalent of attacking someone with a knife for emptying a can of paint on your head after being warned to not do it. Is is a beyond moronic "joke"? Sure. Is (nearly) lethal force what someone who is fine with owlbears would use in that case? Seems a bit too much for me.



The owlbears were just defending their home the same way you or I would. She didn't want to kill them for that.


Owlbears regularly kill passerby persons who did nothing to them, anytime they have the occasion to do so. I'm not saying it's badwrongfun to have a character who's that dedicated to not fight, even with dangerous, homicidal beings, just pointing out how much dedicated you need to be to do so.

[krulin]

Owlbears regularly kill passerby persons who did nothing to them, anytime they have the occasion to do so. I'm not saying it's badwrongfun to have a character who's that dedicated to not fight, even with dangerous, homicidal beings, just pointing out how much dedicated you need to be to do so.

I'm not saying she's a monk who's taken a vow not to fight. I'm just saying she'd rather use her words. Plus we weren't specifically told it was owlbears, but I DM myself for the evil campaign in our group of friends. What that means is that I spend way too much time in the monster manual. That also means I have player knowledge and was trying not to meta game it.

[Clone]

At this stage whats done is done, reasons for doing what both characters did don't matter at this stage. Its great that you want to solve the issue rather than try further get back at the Wizard player, which helps alot.

To answer specifically what you said in your original post, I have to ask:
After the argument left the game and continued between the two players, how are things with the Wizard's player? Are they still defensive about the whole deal? Do they care? Have the two of you made up afterwards?
It was hard to tell if its just an in-character issue or if its a solution to the entire situation you are looking for.

[CursedRhubarb]

Eh, I'd say errors were on both sides. Wizard should know better than to be a **** to someone they haven't known long and if said person has fangs, claws, pointy blades they will likely use them if annoyed. One or two strikes should have been enough though, he's a Wizard, rather squishy with low hp and unless he's a Gnome, Halfling, or Dwarf then by reducing your size a crotch shot or two is a reasonable reaction. And with claws or a dagger he might loose a thing, two, or three he'd rather not.

Apologies should be handed out for over-reactions and douchebagery.

[krulin]

Eh, I'd say errors were on both sides. Wizard should know better than to be a **** to someone they haven't known long and if said person has fangs, claws, pointy blades they will likely use them if annoyed. One or two strikes should have been enough though, he's a Wizard, rather squishy with low hp and unless he's a Gnome, Halfling, or Dwarf then by reducing your size a crotch shot or two is a reasonable reaction. And with claws or a dagger he might loose a thing, two, or three he'd rather not.

Apologies should be handed out for over-reactions and douchebagery.

He actually has ~40 health, so that's hardly squishy against a rogue who had no real way of getting their sneak attack on. Compared to his higher spells that could easily one shot my rogue. Granted he has limited uses, but one on one he has a clear advantage.

[Laurefindel]

Okay, so forgive me for the wall of text, but this requires a full explanation for you guys to appropriately respond. Thanks, in advance if you make it all the way through this post

Yeah, I've been there before krulin, and it's not fun. When something like that happens to me now, I immediately turn to the other player and tell him/her that I'm not interested in playing that game. Then if the player does it again, it becomes clearly an attack on my person, not just on my character. Then I don't hesitate to stop the game on the spot, and have a discussion. I'll involve the DM if necessary, but for me that a reason to leave the game.

I'm not basing this decision on rp anymore. As a player, I can take only so much douchery from another player regardless of what my character may or may not feel. It's a different matter if one of my close friend's character and mine have in-game arguments, tease and fights as long as we respect each other's (player) limits, but that takes a lot of trust. Even then, we constantly check out-of-game that all is cool.

Now if you are willing to play the pvp game, and are able to do so without keeping grudges from others players, make sure everyone is on board before you get into character retaliation.

[furby076]

How I would handle it in game, and out of game - and I think it's reasonable in both aspects

1) Talk with the player and DM and come to an agreement - no more pvp. No more casting spells on other characters without the players permission. This is still a game, so yea - just roll with it.
2) In game. Both characters have been in combat together (owlbear den), so while they are not close - they do realize when push comes to shove they can work together. The wizard is just annoying, and the rogue is a bit touchy. But, you said the rogue is also carefree - so maybe forgiving? They catch up to the wizard, "Listen, are you done acting like a child? How about you quit your practical jokes, and we resume doing the stuff we are doing?" At this point, the wizard should say "fine" as in step 1 everyone came to agreement to knock it off.

Problem solved. Really, it's not much harder then that. For those saying "but that's meta-gaming"...pffft, who the F cares. It's a game with one purpose: allow us to have fun. If resolving conflict in and out of character increases the enjoyment of the players (including DM), then that is the ONLY thing that matters.

[imanidiot]

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough to properly express my feelings about this entire scenario. If I was DMing this game I would have told the Wizard player to quit screwing around. And I would have told you as soon as you said your character was attacking theirs "No, you didn't do that. PVP isn't allowed."

I would at this point tell you and the other player to address the issue and come to an agreement or noth of you can find someone else to play with.

[Arial Black]

Casters act against enemies by casting spells at them; spells which may kill, harm, or mess with them in some way.

Martials act against enemies by using weapons.

If a caster casts a spell at me which messes with me, then he is acting like an enemy.

If a PC caster casts a spell at me which messes with me, that IS PvP. Since he initiated PvP, I have no compunction regarding fighting back by doing what I do, which is by using weapons.

Some people have a zero-tolerance policy regarding bullying. I have a zero-tolerance policy regarding being bullied.

I never initiate PvP, but if someone starts on me, even if they think it's 'harmless' or 'fun', I will respond with deadly force. This is the course of action which is most effective at modifying their behaviour and stopping them trying to bully me.

So, I won't mess with you, but if you go for your can of paint then I'll go for my Big ****ing Sword and we'll see what happens. Or, you can leave it alone. Your choice.

[krulin]

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough to properly express my feelings about this entire scenario. If I was DMing this game I would have told the Wizard player to quit screwing around. And I would have told you as soon as you said your character was attacking theirs "No, you didn't do that. PVP isn't allowed."

I would at this point tell you and the other player to address the issue and come to an agreement or noth of you can find someone else to play with.

Our DM is rather new and he is also not the most assertive person. I don't think he thought the wizard shrinking me was as big of a deal as it was.

[krulin]

Casters act against enemies by casting spells at them; spells which may kill, harm, or mess with them in some way.

Martials act against enemies by using weapons.

If a caster casts a spell at me which messes with me, then he is acting like an enemy.

If a PC caster casts a spell at me which messes with me, that IS PvP. Since he initiated PvP, I have no compunction regarding fighting back by doing what I do, which is by using weapons.

Some people have a zero-tolerance policy regarding bullying. I have a zero-tolerance policy regarding being bullied.

I never initiate PvP, but if someone starts on me, even if they think it's 'harmless' or 'fun', I will respond with deadly force. This is the course of action which is most effective at modifying their behaviour and stopping them trying to bully me.

So, I won't mess with you, but if you go for your can of paint then I'll go for my Big ****ing Sword and we'll see what happens. Or, you can leave it alone. Your choice.

I think that generally explains why despite the fact that she's the carefree and loving life type that this bothered her so much that he was casting spells on her.

On another note, thanks again for everyone's perspectives on this. I really just wanted a self check to see what other people though. My group that play DnD are all pretty good friends, so getting an unbiased opinion from them is hard since it only really involved me and the wizard's player.

Also: Whoops, double post.

[Theodoxus]

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough to properly express my feelings about this entire scenario. If I was DMing this game I would have told the Wizard player to quit screwing around. And I would have told you as soon as you said your character was attacking theirs "No, you didn't do that. PVP isn't allowed."

I would at this point tell you and the other player to address the issue and come to an agreement or noth of you can find someone else to play with.


Yes. PVP is allowed in the sense that characters can fight. However, it is a good party so it is understood that we wouldn't fight to the death unless there was some sort of moral event horizon crossed by one of the party members.

Anyway, I've been finding it difficult to find players who understand what Good is supposed to mean. My regular group of friends skew closer to CE when playing together. Though we don't mess with each other, we're very quick to murderhobo with extreme prejudice anything that isn't family. Quests generally devolve into "are we getting paid enough to do this idiot's work for him?" A lot of the time, it's easier to kill said idiot for his money than to try to defeat whatever critter is exciting him to the point of asking for help...

So, our latest game is Curse of Strahd. We all purposefully rolled good alignments. The idea being that we should be more altruistic and helpful... well, after getting to Barovia and chased into a tree by dire wolves, three of the 6 member party were unconscious, with no healing (I'm currently the only healer, as a 1st level Paladin, and was the 1st to be knocked out by the wolves). So, the three of us unconscious types roll to see how long we're out - the barbarian gets 2 hours, me and the ranger get 4. The wizard runs off to get a cart, takes two hours to find one, haggle for it and bring it back to our makeshift treefort. The barbarian, being awake now, pulls the cart to the nearby village the cart came from. I, being unconscious, tune out to most to the shenanigans, for plausible deniability sake (and this is on Roll20, so tuning out the voice chatter and reading websites is quite easy). Eventually, the ranger and I wake up, in a strange house. I ask what's going on, and am told there are a couple of kids lost, and a baby possibly in danger.

So, the ranger and I jump up to help. The rest of the party has taken a short rest, using HD and Action Surges to heal up. The ranger and I have 1 HP each. I use LoH to get myself a little cushion and then ask if we're going to rest any time soon. Since everyone else had short rested, they said no 'lets just search the house.' Strike #1 in my book of "I'm not really good, I just try to play it on TV".

So, the pretense is they're trying to find the baby these two kids said were in the house, before they mysteriously disappeared. But in reality, the wizard and fighters are searching for any goods they can steal permanently borrow (Strike #2), finding scrolls, books, some money and eventually armor. The whole time, the wizard has been leading everyone by the nose - because it's her Roll20 account, so she's basically the co-DM - and we can't open doors or anything... the ranger complains that the premise of looking for a baby is BS, since they keep stopping to pilfer things from boxes, chests, dressers, etc - places a baby obviously wouldn't be. Since neither the DM nor the co-DM are asking anyone else what they'd like to do/explore - I asked to be included in the decision process... but was told "it's too hard when you don't have access to interact with the environment, just follow along." Strike #3.

I just gave up. I logged out, IM'd my buddy "I'm tired of watching the Wizard & DM show, with no agency" and left it at that.

[krulin]

Anyway, I've been finding it difficult to find players who understand what Good is supposed to mean. My regular group of friends skew closer to CE when playing together. Though we don't mess with each other, we're very quick to murderhobo with extreme prejudice anything that isn't family. Quests generally devolve into "are we getting paid enough to do this idiot's work for him?" A lot of the time, it's easier to kill said idiot for his money than to try to defeat whatever critter is exciting him to the point of asking for help...

Well my friend DM's the main campaign, the campaign that this post is talking about. If you were to average our alignments out we'd probably be true neutral.

On the flip-side, I DM the evil campaign. Despite the fact that it's an evil campaign, I don't think this sort of thing would have happened in the evil campaign. In the evil campaign, there was almost a break in the party, but it was for story reasons and I told them that'd be the only way they'd be allowed real PVP. They've played nice with each other the entire time aside from that.

[Theodoxus]

Well my friend runs the main campaign, the campaign that this post is talking about. If you were to average our alignments out we'd probably be true neutral.

On the flip-side, I DM the evil campaign. Despite the fact that it's an evil campaign, I don't think this sort of thing would have happened in the evil campaign. In the evil campaign, there was almost a break in the party, but it was for story reasons and I told them that'd be the only way they'd be allowed real PVP. They've played nice with each other the entire time aside from that.

It is weird that evil seems to get along better than good... maybe everyone has a wider range of definitions for good, ironically creating greater conflict. Maybe the game itself isn't built towards altruism... IDK. I do find it (edited to add: inter-party conflict and general murder-hoboism) rarer when running or playing Meetup games than home games with friends - the partial anonymous nature, perhaps? I'm sure some social scientist has this all plotted out for their masters thesis - lol

[krulin]

It is weird that evil seems to get along better than good... maybe everyone has a wider range of definitions for good, ironically creating greater conflict. Maybe the game itself isn't built towards altruism... IDK. I do find it (edited to add: inter-party conflict and general murder-hoboism) rarer when running or playing Meetup games than home games with friends - the partial anonymous nature, perhaps? I'm sure some social scientist has this all plotted out for their masters thesis - lol

I think that last sentence is exactly it. I think with a meetup game you get people who don't want to be "that guy". However, with friends, you know the limits and some people just like to push them as far as they can (especially spell-casters and rogues in my experience).

With my current circle of friends, I've played 3 different characters. They've all been female and they've all ended up earning the title "Mama *insert character name here*". I tend to mom for the group.

[Unoriginal]

It is weird that evil seems to get along better than good... maybe everyone has a wider range of definitions for good, ironically creating greater conflict. Maybe the game itself isn't built towards altruism... IDK. I do find it (edited to add: inter-party conflict and general murder-hoboism) rarer when running or playing Meetup games than home games with friends - the partial anonymous nature, perhaps? I'm sure some social scientist has this all plotted out for their masters thesis - lol

I've once played with someone whose idea of what a prank is was "lassoing another PC's legs and making them fall in a sea cold enough to have icebergs in it."

[HuckFriend]

As a rogue, rather that turn to PvP, I would have simply waited until a long rest when the party is asleep and stolen the wizards spellbook and torn out the pages with the offending spells.

[krulin]

As a rogue, rather that turn to PvP, I would have simply waited until a long rest when the party is asleep and stolen the wizards spellbook and torn out the pages with the offending spells.

That's still technically PVP, but I get your point. I'll be subtle next time. Also, I assumed half-elves get the only have to trance ability that elves do. I just looked at their page in the PHB and they don't. They only get the magic can't put you to sleep part of that. Don't worry though, I won't shoot first. :biggrin:

[imanidiot]

Our DM is rather new and he is also not the most assertive person. I don't think he thought the wizard shrinking me was as big of a deal as it was.

I agree that the wizards reduce spell shouldn't have been allowed either. I would offer to just handwave the whole thing and pretend it never happened provided both parties agreed to let it go.

This is why I don't allow PVP in my games or participate in it in other's games. Unless you're running a PVP centered game it never works out.