Party Foul

[Raijinken]

Hey guys! I need your honest opinion on this one:

is it a "party foul" to kill a fellow player? I recently did two, not so long ago.

The guys and I were doing our usual D&D session (3.5 basics; this campaign does not even have the Monk Class, like post 2 and pre-3.5).

Session 1: (we are all buddies in real life here)

One of our players who is also a buddy of ours (who also tends to be an ******* in real-life, usually just for a cheap laugh) plays a Chaotic-Neutral character. Due to a bad rap (DM was rolling good, and ours stinks) in a combat situation, we were about to face a TPK. When the inevitable was about to happen, this guy again (who never misses the chance to "remind" us, that his character is CN and announces that he will leave us to save his own ass).

One of our players is already out of commission (about to reach -10hp, he never made it), the other just went down (now unconscious, also later on not making it), leaving me (a wizard that is out of spells, and definitely the squishiest member) and him (who is unscathed and barely contributed to this fight). When rest of our opponents locked-in on us (already lost interest on the "dead" ones), I asked him "what now?", only to see that he is gone (already high-tailed it out of there). I ran for cover (whilst taking hits), and used the last thing I got: ring of invisibility, and slowly escaped (as they go after us running the opposite way). I was limp the opposite direct, I somehow ran across where he was hiding. Still invisible, I pulled a dagger, crept up behind him, pulled his head back, stabbed and slit his neck, instantly ending his characters (rolls did not make it).

In the end, the guys had to roll up new characters, including him, and I bet his new character will be hell bent on destroying mine (and me). And knowing our DM (probably to make it simple), my character will eventually party-up with these "new guys".


Session 2: (same DM, same campaign, different set of players who are younger than us and are friends of his)

One of his players (whom I was told has anxiety issues in real life), tends to be not just quite vocal with her thoughts but with her actions as well (to the point that she gives us "the bird" as if we are that close, and/or that she is spitting on our faces if she does not agree). You might say, she is quite a character!

Continuing from our last session, the party was about to face a boss, who is way WAY out of our league (an ancient evil that can kill us just by looking at us, and we are what? level 4). The boss decided to forget about us ransacking her place (and decimating her defenses), and decided to cut us a deal: she will spare our lives, in exchange for her (this player's character; who is quite the munchkin stat-wise, born from unbelievably amazing stat rolls; her gameplay otherwise is another story), which definitely the players did not agree on.

The party (originally 5 of them; plus me, who was just "hired" to join this mission, and our DM's "NPC", his personal character who later on joined, but did not do much, except act as a subtle voice of reason, a futile attempt to prevent this impending TPK) were dead set into fighting the boss. As weapons were drawn, the first to fall (unconscious) after taking one tap and the back, is the party's "ringer", the barbarian. The next ones who "fell" are the wizard and the ranger (who were on "auto-pilot" by the DM, both players physically absent). The cleric, who tried to attack from behind, only to get his behind pummeled. Our DM's "NPC", also a cleric, just stood there frozen (apparently was petrified; spell or scared out of his wits? DM never specified). This leaves me (a paladin), and her (a rogue). As the rogue tries intently to look for a way, the boss locked in on me. I jokingly said "Here! Take her! She's housebroken!". The rogue responded by stabbing me with her dagger (she missed; the player then not only gave me "the bird" actually told me to {Scrubbed}). Having enough of that, I drew my greatsword, swung it like a bat, hitting the flat part at the back of her head of the rogue, rendering her unconscious (she never saw it coming, and let alone dodge it).

Unbeknownst to the rogue, the boss was already talked to me telepathically, and as best judgement, I decided to agree with her demands. The boss, true to her word, opened the "locked" room, and let me walk away. As I leave the ziggurat and walked away from it, I later on came across to the rest of the party who are all still unconscious (thrown out and teleported there by the boss). Nothing much I can do, I just sat there and waited, or until at least the 2 clerics wakes up.

Session ended with the players (except the DM) giving me "the look". One of them (who played the cleric) asked "I though paladins are supposed to be good and righteous!", and other (who played the barbarian) went "Paladins should not be afraid of anything, and you actually chickened out!?". And as for her (who played the rogue), she was so pissed off that she does not even know how to confront me. I threw them the classic line: "Lawful Good does not necessarily mean Lawful Nice!" and added "It also does not mean Lawful Stupid!". DM also never mentioned (yet) if I should atone for that.

Our DM later on admitted to me as well that he was quite pissed-off at this session. He was waiting for a response when we faced the boss, but everyone (these players) "ignored" him by stalling with something else (like: stood quiet, look at their phones, changing the topic, asking irrelevant questions, remembering something funny back then, ect... ect...). This happened A LOT when the boss showed up, causing delays. It was so annoying to him that he was THIS CLOSE into making this as a TPK.

In the end, our DM mentioned to me that he offered her to roll-up a new character for continue on playing, which she apparently has not responded to. And yes, before storming out of the gaming place, little miss sunshine's parting words for me is to "{Scrubbed}". I responded by raising my coffee and said "I'll drink to that!". (DM once mentioned that she really loves her character, to the point that she already made TONS of fanart and comics about her)


So, is this a "foul", or am I just being paranoid here?

[icefractal]

First one, it sounds like PVP is well accepted in that group, so not a foul.

Second one, yeah, it's a foul, but it's only partly on you. Why exactly would the GM have a foe that the party has no chance against demand the sacrifice of a particular party member but be fine leaving the rest unharmed? That's pretty much just killing the character by fiat. It sounds like the GM either:
A) Wanted the character gone for having too-high stats.
B) Wanted the player gone and was hoping killing off the character would do that.

Either way, doing it IC by fiat is a crap way to handle it. Got to say if I was the player in question I'd be pissed as well.

[DeTess]

Just reading through it, it seems the first situation is fine. Near tpk's happen, and as long as you did your best first its fine to run when the situation turns against you.

In the second situation I really don't get why everyone is only angry with you, rather than also with the dm. Yes, you acted very selfishly (and the 'housebroken' comment is iffy, to put it mildly), but it was the dm that put you in a no-win scenario. Your party had, by your account, allready lost, and I'm really not seeing how you could have gotten out of there without acceding to the bbeg's demands. I'd talk to your dm about that.

[Rynjin]

Am I reading the same post as everyone else? In scenario 1, you are the PvP instigator. Yes, that is a "party foul". You killed someone else' character for no real reason that I can discern, and seemingly by godmodding; I don't know how a Wizard manages an instant kill knife attack against anyone roughly on his level.

In the second circumstance, you deliberately sold out another PC and insulted them to their face, thus also making you the instigator.

{Scrubbed}

[Quertus]

{Scrubbed}

To answer the general question, is it a party foul to kill a fellow player? Yes, it's called murder, and is illegal. (Couldn't quite make the Drax quote work here)

Having your character kill a fellow PC? Well, it depends entirely on the social contract. In some groups it's fine to expected; in others, it's verboten. If there isn't an explicit social contract, you default to the system expectations. D&D is generally supposed to be a *cooperative* game, so yeah, murdering other PCs in a cooperative game is bad form.

{Scrubbed}

[RifleAvenger]

If you have to make an "AITA?" thread, high chances the answer to the question is "yes."

{Scrubbed}

PvP is acceptable if there's buy-in, but unlike some posters I'm not seeing a clear sign that actually occurred. Especially in the second case where the rest of the players clearly disagreed with the choice and one was mad enough to outright quit; in a game worked out to be "everyone for themselves" at session 0, these OOC consequences wouldn't have happened.
{Scrubbed}

[Satinavian]

I also do think both situations are bad.

The first one is horrible. You kill a party member because he is slightly faster in deciding to run for his life? Don't see any justification for that.


The second one is selling out a party member. That is easier to justify if the character is certain this would safe all the other party members and there was no other way. But it is not something a paladin should do. Add to that that your character also did it in a pretty disgusting way instead of feeling at least conflicted about it and that you didn't write it as if you believed you would buy the lifes of the other PCs instead of just your own, it seems nasty overall as well.

So yes, both could be party fouls with the first one seeming far worse.

[DeTess]

Seems I misread the first situation. I missed that you'd killed the other player's character after running, which was completely unnecessary and marks you as the bad guy in that situation.

[Seto]

It depends on table assumptions, but by default, yes, it's a big foul. Definitely shouldn't try it if you're not sure that the other players will be fine with it. Especially in D&D. And reading your examples, it does seem pretty bad (even though in the second example, it's understandable because you were basically forced into it by the DM).
Now if you were playing Paranoia or something, the answer would be different.

[Berenger]

So, is this a "foul", or am I just being paranoid here?

It is, at a minimum, two fouls.

[Ajustusdaniel]

Did your actions adversely affect the other players' experience in a reasonably foreseeable and avoidable way?

[Lord Torath]

Sounds like it's time for your party to renegotiate your social contract. You may not all be playing by the same rules. You guys need to sit down and hash out how you're going to behave as a group. Here's an example of the kind of thing you need to come up with. Not all these points will apply to your group, and you may need some points that don't appear on this list.

1. We’re here to have fun.
2. Be constructive, not destructive, to other players (including the DM).
3. Communicate!
4. DM should be able to take constructive criticism.
5. DM should adjust the campaign based on actions of the PCs.
6. DM should not railroad the story.
7. Combat is most exciting when it’s dangerous.
8. DM should not deliberately try to kill PCs, but PCs will probably die occasionally.
9. It’s good to have places/things too powerful for the PCs to defeat.
10. DM needs to communicate when things are too powerful for the PCs to defeat.
11. NPCs should generally follow the same rules the PCs use. But only generally.
12. PCs should be able to attempt things not covered in the rules.
13. The DM runs the game; the dice do not.
14. DM is not required to roll dice in the open (but he can if he wants to).
15. Don’t interrupt the game with long rules arguments.
16. Retcons are to be avoided, but may be used in extreme circumstances.
17. DM shouldn’t try to “win” by beating the players.
18. Characters will occasionally die – permanently.
19. Players should learn the rules of the game.
20. Treat your host with respect, use good personal hygiene, and chip in for/provide your own food and drink (according to arrangements made by your group).
21. Alignment and paladin codes need to be clearly communicated to the players. If players do something “against code”, assume they forgot, and give them a refresher and a chance to change their action.
22. Don’t be a jerk IC unless it’s agreed on beforehand, or OoC.
23. DM can prohibit disruptive PC actions.
24. Players run the PCs, the DM does not.
D&D Manifesto
Send comments to [email protected]
Occasional bumps in play after adopting the 3rd Edition rules led me to realize that players are just not always operating on the same page as I am. What I say/mean and what they hear/understand are often quite different things. All DM’s face similar problems to one degree or another. Everyone has different ideas of what the approach of a DM or player should be to the game so they may have erroneous assumptions about what those approaches actually ARE. No matter how many years you’ve been discussing rules and little bits of "game philosophy" what you have specifically in mind and what your players understand to be the case are, too often, two very different beasts. Though it had always been a consistent issue before then, in 3rd Edition this produced highly undesirable arguments with players over in-game situations that I decided could and SHOULD have been avoided by communicating with my players as much as I did with people online about D&D. So, I decided to more formally set out some principles of what I think my job is as DM. It’s what I think is the job of every DM. It’s the "rights and responsibilities" of everyone including players. It’s the differences between what the DM can do, should try to do, and is obligated to do.
This document is based on discussions I have read and participated in for decades now on the internet - including before there was even a World Wide Web. Any number of personal conversations and game situations over decades of playing have also contributed, as have my own independent study of the issues. I haven’t personally experienced everything discussed below, but everybody will have seen some part of it in their games and faced resolving the issues created.
You may believe differently than I do on specific issues. This isn’t meant to be a full-blown set of house rules, but a general philosophy to be basing house rules upon. It’s a "same page" for all the participants to work from regardless of the specific rules a DM later applies. As such, when it is edited to fit YOUR ideas it should make a good companion to any collection of house rules you assemble. Discuss it with players. Get their input. Add, modify, delete. I'm not trying to dictate to you how to play - I'm just telling you that you need to have this discussion with your gaming group before you start playing so you can begin and maintain an open dialogue.
I realize that it is LONG. I've tried to keep it as concise as possible while still being clear, but I believe it's important to cover ALL these items. The ones you think don't need to be mentioned may just be the ones that turn out to be more important than the others. I will even suggest that you go so far as to read it aloud before beginning any campaign. If you're running an open game such as at a game store then read it at the beginning of every session and/or have print copies that can be handed out. Have players read along and take them home, and give them your email address so they can provide feedback. If a new player joins the campaign in progress then have THEM read it aloud so there can be no excuses. It will also provide a DM with the ability to say, "We will now re-read the Manifesto because somebody at the table needs to be reminded of what it says." Heck, just add a last line that reads:
"By signing this document, or even by simply agreeing to play in the game which is informed and governed by this document, I agree to abide by its precepts (even if I disagree with some of them) and accept that I will be asked to leave if I cannot or will not do so."
... and have them sign it.
________________________________________
1. The first job of everyone playing the game is to enjoy it. It is the whole point to the exercise. If you're not having fun why are you here?
2. Be constructive. If you're not having fun try to do something about it. Don’t be disruptive in the process. You are there to enjoy yourself, but not to be passively entertained, and not at the expense of others at the table. Active participation is a necessary component - as is your maturity and restraint.
3. Communicate DANG IT! If you aren't having fun as a player, even though you may think it's very obvious, it's quite possible the DM or other players aren't going to know unless you say something. If you’re not enjoying your experience as DM you don’t have to put up with it. Nobody can force you to run a game. Sometimes you become the DM just because everyone else wants to avoid the job more than you do, but remember that no one can take advantage of you without your permission. If you have a problem with ANYTHING in the game: rules, behavior of a player, etc. then SAY SO! ESP is not a standard human ability.
4. The day a DM can't deal with a helpful suggestion or even hard, sincere criticism from players about the campaign is the day the DM needs to give up the chair. The game does not revolve around stroking the DM's ego.
5. A campaign is not absolutely under a DM's control. When PCs take actions within the campaign the campaign needs to adjust to take those actions into account. Through their characters actions the players WILL make changes to the game, therefore the DM cannot and should not attempt to force the campaign to go ONLY in directions he planned for because the freedom that is necessary for player characters can and will foil prearranged plans.
6. Things do not always go as the DM plans (see #5). For this reason among others the DM should really not be seeking to dictate a story. The only way to get characters to play out the story the DM believes they should play out is to force them to. Campaigns are about the player characters. They weave stories created and heavily influenced by the characters actions. D&D wasn't intended to be a game where player characters were simply plugged into a story preordained by the DM and then required to go through the motions to fulfill it. You must provide opportunity for the characters to do things yet not constantly try to control what they do to fit what you wanted. DM's should keep their stinking noses out of EVERY decision that a player makes for a PC unless it's absolutely necessary to maintain order, or specific in-game rules suspend a players control over his characters actions.
7. Danger levels: The most satisfying combats are usually the ones that take characters right to the edge of death, with the very real danger of death being present, yet without actually crossing that threshold unnecessarily. But not only is the game designed to randomize events but even small differences in so many areas combine to make it impossible to plan perfectly. Combat encounters are never a sure thing regardless of how meticulously designed they are. So, while the edge of disaster is the most exciting place to be it is also is the most likely way for events to slip out of control. This is just something that needs to be kept in mind by everyone.
8. A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PCs has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PCs whenever he bloody well feels like it, so if the DM's does intend to kill the characters what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by thoughtlessly causing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones which they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PCs will occasionally die anyway. See also # 17.
9. Even given #’s 7 and 8 above it is still in everybody's interest for a campaign to have places, creatures, or encounters that the PCs are not actually able to defeat. It gives a campaign world a needed aura that it does not exist purely for the benefit of the PCs but has a life of its own. Without it the world becomes a place where the dangers within it always scale precisely - and therefore unrealistically - to the PCs’ capabilities. There is never anything like a real "Canyon of Doom" or legendarily undefeatable monster if its power is always adjusted to what the PCs can immediately handle.
10. Given #9 (that there are people and places that the PCs cannot and should not face) part of the DM's job is to make sure that the players and their characters are suitably warned about lethal dangers. That goes back to #8 – that it is never the DM's job to set out to kill the characters. It is the players’ responsibility to pay attention to those warnings without anyone needing to break character. But if the characters ignore warnings (for whatever reason) the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Still doesn't mean he should, just that it can’t really be held against him if he does. What this means for players is that the bull-headed notion of always fighting to the death, never retreating, and never surrendering will ultimately lead only to a TPK (total party kill) which is no fun for anyone.
11. Fair Play: It is generally in the interest of "fair play" for the DM to have the rest of his campaign world operating largely under the same rules that the PCs do. PCs and NPCs should have much the same limitations and open possibilities, but to get fanatical about "being fair" in this regard is not in anyone's interests either. It would mean that the DM is restricted in creating new and interesting challenges for the characters. While there are innumerable options within the existing rules, being allowed to create new rules, singular exceptions to rules, and even things that would not otherwise be possible under the known rules is a DM's prerogative. Only if the DM overuses or abuses this privilege are the players being cheated in any way. The "rules" never have, and never will, contain the absolute answers for everything in a campaign. It may also be that the DM needs to explain some changes up front. Fair play also applies between players. Characters are inherently unequal - in ANY version of the rules - and cannot be made equal; not by balancing feats, skills and abilities; not by everyone having identical ability scores; not even by everyone using completely identical characters because player skill and choice makes a difference too. Enjoyment of the game should not rely on NOBODY possibly having more fun than you at a given time. If it does then you're too immature for MY games. The DM needs only to try to make sure that the gap between one PC and another isn't TOO excessive.
12. As a corollary to #11, the players and their characters are not always bound by "the rules" in what they can do (or at least in what they can attempt.) There simply isn’t a rule for everything. One of a DM's biggest jobs is adjudication and adaptation of rules to the many situations that arise within a game. So by definition PCs can at least attempt to do things outside of the rules. In fact they generally get extra credit for such creativity (unless they make themselves a pest by constantly trying to do things not covered by the rules). To then deny the same privilege to the DM would be silly; to expect the DM to religiously follow rules when the players don’t.
13. The dice don’t run the game - the DM does. There are many charts, tables, formulae, etc for DMs to use in running the game. Naturally, using dice produces random results - at least as random as the tables and charts allow. The game, however, is not LIMITED to the dictates of charts and tables which is why there is the position of DM at all. I feel that not only is the DM free to expand or restrict the tables and formulae, but that he is free to alter dice rolls as well. At least those rolls that would negatively affect the PCs. A little of that (very little!) goes a long way and just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. To fudge things in the favor of the players is a useful tool to have as long as appropriate consequences of BAD decisions by the players or their characters are not being removed as a result. This is a DM's escape clause so it should be used only when as a DM you NEED (not just want) to alter results. To arbitrarily adjust results against the PCs is not a good idea at all. It often serves no purpose but to enforce a preconceived conclusion that the DM has – that the DM wants to force the PCs to conform to his personal vision, meaning that the players control of their own characters is rendered pointless. Remember that as DM it is your job to lose to the PCs - A LOT. I have found that slavish obedience to the dice and their results is too often just an attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the DM as primary instigator of a fun, interesting, and exciting game. The DM already has vast latitude; he can arbitrarily decide how many and how often dice rolls get made as well as many of the modifiers that would affect them. To then say that he must always, unwaveringly accept dice rolls only as-is or else be branded "unfair" or even a cheat is ludicrous. Similarly, there may be times when players should NOT have to roll to succeed regardless of what the rules say. See also # 18.
14. The DM is certainly not required to roll his dice in the open and should normally be discouraged from doing so. There may be factors at work behind the screen that the players should not, and need not be able to deduce by meta-game mathematics. Players and/or their characters will not always know every bonus and penalty that can and is being applied. Also, given #13, it prevents the DM from attempting to work things in the PCs’ favor without unnecessarily revealing that he’s doing so. Players on the other hand should always roll their dice openly. Nothing is kept secret from the DM because the DM needs, and still has adjudication and veto power - the precise details for which are not necessarily important for players to know. The only situation I can think of where a player can hide his rolls is as regards another player - but even then the DM still has authority to see all rolls, even if all the players don't.
15. Differences of Opinion About Rules: Conventional wisdom suggests that whenever it is at all feasible rules-lawyering should be kept to a minimum during the game. Players should concisely state the substance of objections, the DM should make a ruling after listening to all sides, and if players take exception to the ruling it should be noted - but then play should proceed. If a DM is not out to screw the players but to simply provide the best game possible there are very few problems whose minutia could not wait until later (even until after the session is over) to hash out. Also, the DM is not perfect and not everything he rules on in a game should be considered a new law graven in stone. If they make mistakes and change their minds later it doesn’t mean everything from earlier events needs to be "retconned." See #16 below.
16. Retconning or Retcon is short for Retroactive Continuity. It means to "turn back time" to the point where a mistake was made and begin playing again from that point. When bad rulings, oversights, meta-game complications, or bad/boring plots go REALLY bad this is one way to fix things, but it is never very satisfying. If things have not degenerated too far it may be best to handle things this way, but there comes a certain point where it is better to simply accept what has taken place - no matter how stupidly or badly it was done - take it in stride and move forward. The level of screw-up that leads to taking this route always seems to involve a character's death making resolution of the problem more emotionally charged for players than would normally be the case.
17. The DM is not there to formally oppose the players despite what you may read in comics. He is there to provide the world for the characters, things for them to do within it, and to adjudicate their actions. If the DM sees himself as the opponent for the players – he wins. The only question then is how tedious and humiliating an experience he makes it for the players. He gets to make up anything and everything that the characters encounter. There is no ability for the players to trump that, so there can be no purely antagonistic position between players and DM without the DM simply being a gigantic ass.
18. Characters die. They can – and should – occasionally die permanently. It is my firm belief that resurrection magic is in the game only because it is so easy for characters to die and playing on the edge of disaster is more fun and exciting (see #7), but unless permanent character death is more than just a theoretical possibility that never really occurs there is no fear of death and playing "on the edge" is meaningless. Players must accept the real possibility that a favorite character can and will die permanently and that the DM can’t predict when and who it will be. Very seldom will a character even be able to willingly go out in a cinematic blaze of glory. Such things are simply very hard to engineer because the game isn't designed to facilitate it without just throwing all rules to the wind and narrating a predetermined outcome.
19. Players must learn the rules. Nobody needs to pass a rules knowledge test or memorize it all - not even the DM - but it's more than reasonable to expect that players read the entire Players Handbook and be able to understand it. Anyone new to the game needs to accept that they will need to do a lot of reading and put some effort into learning the game, and there is a lot of information they need to absorb right from the start. The basics of the game can be taught in short order, perhaps an hour or at most one game session. After a few sessions of play they should NOT require having basics repeatedly explained. Only if the DM informs players up front that the rules DON'T MATTER, or the player actually has learning disabilities is anyone excused from achieving a general, functional knowledge of the game. Older editions in particular have elements that are confused or questions left unanswered. DMs are required to fill in those gaps in ways suitable to their game. Players should accept that not everything has a single, easy answer or definition.
20. Regarding "Table Rules": Wherever the game session is taking place respect the host and the hosts property. Don't make a mess. Clean it up if you do. Behave. You are a GUEST so act accordingly. Assist the host and/or DM in getting others to respect the Table Rules. Sadly, it is necessary to state that this includes being mindful of your own hygiene. Just because nobody tells you, "You stink!" doesn't mean that you don't. They may want to tell you so but are TOO polite to do so, they don't know how to do it tactfully, or rightly fear that it will be taken for an insult rather than an appropriate reaction to YOUR social offensiveness. This means bathe/shower before a game, wear clean clothes, and brush your teeth. Any simple request that you clean yourself up, stop interrupting, stop being an ass, pay attention to the game instead of the phone/computer/book/your navel lint/etc. must NOT be considered an insult. It will be considered a FAVOR to you; an opportunity to better yourself as a person if not as a player. A simple, direct apology and CORRECTION of the situation is all that should be necessary. Players are typically responsible for their own food, drinks, etc. unless arrangements are made ahead of time. It is BASIC manners to reciprocate other players hospitality if/when it comes to be your turn to host the game. If you so desire or cannot afford to do so then advise people well ahead of time so that other arrangements can be made.
21. There are some game rules which despite being rules are subject to wide interpretation. What alignment means to you and how it works is probably chief among these. Paladins and their obligations are related and a close second. How certain feats actually function, or maybe just what you will and won't allow players/PCs to do are variables. These things MUST be clarified at the start and perhaps even occasionally restated - even if you go by the book. Really, this should be assumed under #3 but communication (or lack thereof) is the single most common cause of ALL problems in D&D. The DM should not always assume the players know what he wants, how he interprets things, or runs things. These things must be TOLD to players early and often to eliminate misunderstandings and arguments. If players are not given this information then they should demand it - and if it isn't provided they must not be held to fault for implementing their own interpretations.
22. Players are obliged to be fair and reasonable to other players, as well as for their characters to act likewise towards other PCs. There is no excuse for either you or your character to be an ass. NONE. The only exception being if the ALL the players are mature enough for their characters to be openly antagonistic of each other, and that the DM has made it clear from the start that such behavior is to be allowed, as well as how it will be kept in line. This is NOT an unreasonable restriction upon roleplaying but is, in fact, a very basic supposition of the game: the PCs, an often radically diverse party of individuals, nonetheless DO adventure together for money, glory, and other mutually agreeable ends. This means that right from the start, as a player you are largely obliged to find reasons for your character to LIKE the other PCs, not openly antagonize them. It means that no player gets to dictate to the other players the circumstances of their participation in the game in general; no character gets to dictate to another character how they are to be treated in the adventuring party, nor may an exclusive collection of two or more players/characters exert such control over one or more others. The DM is obliged to maintain this atmosphere of civility and cooperation, or, if it has been agreed by all beforehand to allow crossing that line, he is obliged to keep in and out-of-character attitudes and behavior from becoming disruptive.
23. The DM is not required to allow a character to actually play out in the game anything that the player wants. What that means is that particularly if the player is about to do something the DM feels is either really stupid or openly disruptive he should stop the game and get clarification or correction before proceeding. For example, if a character is about to kill an NPC for no reason, then rather than allow it to happen the DM should stop the player and find out what's going on. Determine the player's/character's motive. If the players response is unsatisfactory he should DISALLOW the action from taking place at all and let play proceed from THAT point instead of proceeding from the point AFTER the disruptive act has been allowed to occur and trying to pick up the pieces. Communication flows both ways and the DM does not need to act as if players should be forbidden to ever knows what goes on in a DM's mind or behind the DM shield. When a DM makes rulings there is no reason not to freely explain why he rules as he does unless there is in-game information involved that PCs should not be privy to. DMs should be capable of providing explanations for their rulings beyond, "because I said so."
24. The players run their characters - the DM does NOT. Unless players are being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive the DM should keep his stinking paws off controlling the PCs. The DM does not dictate what the PC's do except if some form of in-game magical control has removed it from the player (such as charm, or lycanthropy) - and then the DM needs to be VERY judicious about what he does with the character. The ONE THING players get to control in the game is the attempted actions of their characters. DM's should interfere with that control only in extremis and with great care and caution even then. This extends to not interfering with treasure distribution. Although the DM determines what treasure is found it must generally be left up to the players and their characters to determine how it is distributed - unless it is done so badly as to be disruptive or patently unfair to other players.
In particular, I think you guys need to decide where on the PVP-Cooperative scale you want to play.
See also Point 22

[King of Nowhere]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


I agree on that.

Yes, you are at fault, gratly, on both counts. and despite that, you may even be less at fault than others.
so, let's see.
first time: a tpk can happen, nothing unusual. one guy, who - as far as i can tell - is being "chaotic neutral" as an excuse to be anal, leaves the party without fighting. that's very bad behavior. still does not justify you for killing his character after you ecaped. really, you had no particular reason for it.
second time: a player insulting and antagonizing everyone is bad behavior, so the girl is certainly to blame. the dm setting up the situation where one character would be murdered or they'd face a certain tpk.... well, that's awful. if the dm set this up on purpose, he's an awful dm (and given the frequency with which tpk happen at his tables, i am inclined to think this is the case). otherwise the party did something really, really stupid to end up in that situation, against all kinds of dm warning. but someone is certainly at foul. As for selling out your fellow, it may have been justified. being smug about it, though, strips away any justification. Just like in the first time, you got angry at your fellow players and wanted to vent.

all i can say is that i would not want to game with any of the people mentioned

[JNAProductions]

is it a "party foul" to kill a fellow player? I recently did two, not so long ago.

I think that's a crime. Characters can be fair game, but players generally aren't. :P

Overall, it sounds like your table has very different standards from any I've been part of. PvP is not something I ban at my tables, but I do treat it with a hefty amount of caution-the closest I got recently was two PCs doing a sparring match, which is technically PvP, I suppose, but a very benign version of it. So, lacking experience with your friends, I'd talk to them about it. And be prepared to apologize!

[Raijinken]

Thanks for the honest response guys. And I believe I owe explanations here:

Table 1
- admittedly, I did this one out of spite (I guess foul on me on this one). He makes that "reminder" everytime he sees a combat situation turns bad (we also tend to, if not, always take that as a joke, because he is the type of guy who is hard to take seriously). Gameplay wise, He is also the first to disappear when trouble (which he started) wildly breaks out. There were also times that he "sold" us out (either to lecherous individuals, or someone who just wants to punch around). At one point, we all have almost came to the decision to just leave him for dead when he fell unconscious to a trap (which basically what he did to us back then). We also used to respond his "reminder" with a "....and if we die, we will kill you!", I guess I was so pissed off, that I decided to be true to my (our) "reminder".

In the end: our DM thought of patching things up here by offering a reset, with a new campaign. And as for that buddy of ours, we decided to just laugh it off (for this is NOT the first time his shenanigans turned out so bad, that it almost caused us our friendships). But I am keeping my guard up, because knowing him, I bet and know that payback is inevitable.


Table 2
- our DM who was been strongly and highly throwing the hints that this one should be fought diplomatically. Fighting it is basically like being thrown into a hungry lions' den while hog-tied and covered in barbecue sauce. The players in this table failed to see that, and thought that (like in RPGs), this is winnable through combat (and that the DM should eventually make that happen, because "he should not throw something that players cannot win against"). As the boss was speaking to me telepathically, I tried to deal with her by offering something else. Since we are pretty much as a stand-still (we got nothing else that interests her, and her patience with us is thinning; so its her way or the highway), I decided to go with that decision to save everyone else. Sure! I am the bad guy here, and I absolutely accept that. I chose (what I consider as) the lesser evil act because I thought (character wise, and me personally) that its not worth the TPK, just because one "has to be saved" (because if we do not, she will hate us in real life; her friends and our DM knows that).
- Plus, if I can be brutally honest here (and yes, I know it is not my place to say, dictate or judge), her gameplay stinks to high heavens! To list some of them (stories told by the DM, and based on personal observation): She does not search for traps (causing party members to get hurt), she always hides behind the barbarian in ALL combat situations (whereas said barbarian, both player and character, plays the knight-in-shining armor; she only drew her weapon once, for an intimidation check; she also had multiple perfect opportunities for either a Sneak Attack or a Back Stab, only to do nothing but search for treasure), she spits on the faces of who she thinks that looks at her badly (why? because that is how her character is aligned, CN; takes the "I don't give a{Scrubbed}about anyone but me" too seriously), and stabs literally anyone who touches her (may it be intentional: like someone held her shoulder as he tries to pick her up, or completely unintentional: like the little girl in town who was running around happily playing with the other kids, and accidentally bumping into her; why? she just says "background reasons"; their party got into trouble when she did that to a noble, and later on the constables, and where was she while this was happening? hiding somewhere as her party mates pays for it). Our DM also once mentioned that he finds murderhobos more tolerable that her character.

In the end: Before I was brought to this table, I was given information about the players. Everyone was pretty cool with me (and as I was with them), she specifically was a special case. I do not exactly know what or how her "anxiety issues" are defined. I only played like 3 or 4 sessions on this table. Since I do not want to cramp my buddy's style, and them ending up hating him too. I decided to just step aside, and walk away from this one. According to my buddy, they are still playing and enjoying (did she roll-up a new one, or did she manage to somehow escape? that I never knew). I was even invited to join them in their previous sessions, but decided to turn it down by making something up. I left my paladin to my buddy, and let him decide on his fate.

[Jay R]

You're asking the wrong question.

Not "Is it a party foul?" That's a question about morality, which we aren't even aloud to discuss on this forum.

But the straightforward, practical question is this: "Will these players ever play with you again?" If I were a player, the answer would be "No".

Not because it's a "party foul".
Not because you betrayed the party.
Not because I expect loyalty from a paladin on my team.
Not because you objected to a guy in the first scenario abandoning a party for himself, and then did the exact same thing in the other scenario.

But because it wouldn't be fun. I like paying a team of people who support each other in threatening situations.

The Avengers argue all the time -- but defend each other in battle.
Harry, Ron, and Hermione squabble incessantly -- and fight together.
Boromir tried to betray Frodo when alone -- and then gave his life for Merry and Pippin when the enemy attacked.

I strongly recommend that you play the hero. It's more fun.

[King of Nowhere]

Thanks for the honest response guys. And I believe I owe explanations here:
snip

a player saying "i am chaotic neutral, i do what i want and don't give a ****" is a big red flag at any table.
heck, it's such a huge red flag that some overzealous dm banned the whole CN alignment (though, in truth, that's CE anyway. stabbing a kid that brushed you on the street? ewww). but the problem is not the alignment, it's the player who wants a badge to be excused for otherwise unexcusable behavior. who wants to sit down and play what should be a cooperative game and be an ass and be disruptive.
BUT! there is a frequent saying here: you cannot solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.
this means: those two dudes are problem players. killing their characters will NOT fix them being problem players. it will NOT improve matters. You must solve this problem out of character, either by talking to them and persuading them to stop being disruptive, or by kicking them out of the group.
If you engage in pvp you don't solve the problem and you make it worse instead. now they will make new characters and will look for revenge, so now you have a problem player who has also more special reasons to be disruptive. you become part of the problem.
every week or two somebody posts in this forum with some situation similar to yours, asking advice about some problem player, and the forum answer is basically always the same. I should try to code it here into a neat diagram:

https://imgur.com/twIMJlD.png

[Vahnavoi]

There are a very limited number of situations where killing a fellow party member is not a party foul:

- it is by request (assisted suicide etc.)
- it is a proportionate punishment for a crime (they are being executed for murder, rape etc.)
- it is in agreed-upon combat (a duel for honor etc.)
- they are out of their mind and a lethal threat (demonic possession, mental domination etc.)
- they are attempting an unacceptable crime (such as murdering or raping you)

In all other situations, killing a fellow is a foul: it shows you've put yourself outside the group and are yourself a traitor or an enemy. Others are allowed to respond in kind.

None of this answers whether it's a game foul. :smallamused: There isn't an universal reason for any character-against-character action to be a foul that'd be a cause for stopping a game or kicking a player out, it's purely a matter of what kind of game your playing and what are its specific rules.

So if you're asking for what is a game foul, look at the reactions of the other players and especially your GM. Are they upset? And I don't mean "upset" as in emotionally shocked or angry, people get shocked and angry when they lose even in games where what caused their loss is perfectly normal, given the rules of the game. I mean "upset" as in they're ready to throw you out of the door. :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

I strongly recommend that you play the hero. It's more fun.

But he *did* play the hero - he was a Paladin, *and* he saved the (rest of the) party - he's a hero twice over!

I think what the *whole group* needs is lessons in *teamwork*. Towards that end, I will suggest learning to roleplay the villain.

Imagine the guy who would do absolutely anything to protect the people that they care about. Who would steal the stars just to light their way, burn down a village to keep them warm, commit genocide to remove languages that they find difficult to pronounce. For whom those people are their world, their light, their everything.

Now imagine that that very short list of people that they care about is *the party*.

Think about how *that character* would view your actions in the two campaigns you've described. Think about what they would want to do to you for murdering their beloved coward, or selling out their precious… sociopath(?).

Once you get good at role-playing this character, make some iconic reminder of their existence - perhaps a mini, or a little character sketch - and keep it with you.

Whenever you go to take an action, ask yourself: what would *they* think about this? What would *they* do?

Then play someone better.

[KaussH]

There are a very limited number of situations where killing a fellow party member is not a party foul:

- it is by request (assisted suicide etc.)
- it is a proportionate punishment for a crime (they are being executed for murder, rape etc.)
- it is in agreed-upon combat (a duel for honor etc.)
- they are out of their mind and a lethal threat (demonic possession, mental domination etc.)
- they are attempting an unacceptable crime (such as murdering or raping you)

In all other situations, killing a fellow is a foul: it shows you've put yourself outside the group and are yourself a traitor or an enemy. Others are allowed to respond in kind.


This is a side point but, i just dont support the group is the most important thing. A lot of charicters should be willing to fight or kill party members if the do things in game deserving of it. The npc/pc distinction isnt an in game thing for me most the time. If your charicter jumps out and starts murdering random villagers and i am playing somone with morals, ethics, good, ect, your going down.
In a lot of games the in game bonds of pcs are way more slender than bonds with family, towns, mentors, ect

Now i get some players are party first no matter what, and i don't tend to play anything but one shots with them.

That said, the op seems to have commited fouls by almost anyones rules so....

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a side point but, i just dont support the group is the most important thing. A lot of charicters should be willing to fight or kill party members if the do things in game deserving of it. The npc/pc distinction isnt an in game thing for me most the time. If your charicter jumps out and starts murdering random villagers and i am playing somone with morals, ethics, good, ect, your going down.
In a lot of games the in game bonds of pcs are way more slender than bonds with family, towns, mentors, ect

Now i get some players are party first no matter what, and i don't tend to play anything but one shots with them.

That said, the op seems to have commited fouls by almost anyones rules so....

This depends on
* the game system--D&D is much more party-oriented than some other games. In a PbtA game, the notion of "party first" is minimal as I understand it.
* the players' expectations

I'd expect (for my games) that incompatible characters (the holy paladin and the necromancer) would be caught at session 0--that's why I have everyone check everyone else's characters for tone fits. I expect people to create and play characters that want to be there and want to be part of that group. There can be disagreements, but if there are ones that make two characters incompatible, one (or both) gets retired by leaving the group and new ones created that can be part of the group.

I don't allow PvP--it's said as much straight up. If you want to take an action that another player considers harmful to their character, you have to clear it with them OOC and they have the veto. Including dropping AoE on them[1], taking combat actions against them[2], or undercutting/stealing from them. Conversely, anyone being a *** about that (ie using that need to get permission to "get ahead") gets asked to shape up or ship out. And this happens before the action happens in-game--nothing gets narrated until everyone can agree that it should go forward.

Part of that was playing with teenagers for a long time. They need strict reins.

[1] 99% of the time, the injured party says "sure, do it. I can take the hit."
[2] You want to duel? You set the terms ahead of time OOC and stick to them. No backstabbing, nothing that would cause mechanical actions.

[Saint-Just]

My RP experiences don't seem to align with what passes for normal on these forums, and I have always enjoyed a good PK. Good being defined as "for valid in-character reasons". Yes, stereotypical Chaotic Stupid would have a plausible reason 90% of the time, but I do not expect people to make a character merely to justify the behavior they want out of character (Yes, I know that happens, never have been a significant risk in my experience). And if someone plays Chaotic Stupid well enough I am willing to risk being stabbed in the back.
I abide for what I perceive as a social contract in this or that group, but if "No PK" policy is in force it's best to state it explicitly.

But those two examples don't sit right with me. First one is absolutely pointless from the outside perspective. The party lost and two players were retreating. Even if one was a bad player not contributing to the team, killing the PC is unlikely to improve the situation. And from the characters' perspective I am not sure why would wizard kill his adventuring companion. Someone who is so honorable that he would kill those who run in the face of the enemy should not have run himself. Someone purely logical may want to ditch the craven companion in the nearest safe place and try his luck with others, but why not retreat together, and why kill? Someone so self-centered that he would kill someone who have passively endangered him? Barely plausible, but I'd think such person would find it hard to make adventuring companions (or even merely partners) in the first place. It definitely sounds like wizard's player was trying to punish his fellow player and it never goes well.

And the second example is weirder. From the outside perspective it was useful (yes, even in the end, it was not save the paladin or save the rouge, it was save the paladin, or save no one). But it was that way only because the DM has for some inscrutable reason contrived to demand the life of that PC, likely knowing full well that the rogue as played by this player (who seems to have trouble separating IC and OOC) is not going to cooperate. What's going next is even worse. Paladin is behaving quite unpaladinly even with his words (if not defiance in the face of the enemy, I'd expect at least trying to convince the rouge about needs of the many etc., not an empty joke). The rogue initiates the violence against her party member when it's definitely going to hamper her chances for survival. In fact from the characters' perspective I can see the paladin knocking out the rogue when she responds to words with violence, self-defense is not unreasonable here, but instead the OP is talking about paladin making a decision "better you then I".

[Friv]

I'm mostly just joining the choir here, but what the heck.

In the first situation, it feels like a bad response to a bad decision. Your party got savaged because this player was being a dink, so you responded by being a dink right back at him so that your party wouldn't suffer alone. This had the exact effect I would have expected - the player you stabbed didn't learn not to be a dink, he learned that the next time he wants to be a dink he should kill you first. This in turn makes the whole game experience worse, and I fully expect that in the long run we're going to get another story from you about how the second set of characters all died when this player escalated the situation again.

In the second situation, you did something bad, the player you did it to do something worse, and the DM did the worst of all. No matter how I parse it, I read this as "the DM didn't want to keep dealing with the player's character, but knew that the player would be extremely unhappy with losing them, and so tried to foist the responsibility and consequences off onto you. They then succeeded, and having been tricked into taking the consequences, you subsequently left the group, allowing the DM to reap the spoils of their conflict-averse decision."

I think that, from your description, you handled the situation about as badly as it is possible to have done so - being flippant about something that was very emotionally important to the person you hurt, and then being defensively flippant when other people tried to call you on that. At the same time, you were also in a no-win situation where handling the situation well was probably impossible, and I can understand reacting poorly to other people's poor decisions.

[King of Nowhere]

This is a side point but, i just dont support the group is the most important thing. A lot of charicters should be willing to fight or kill party members if the do things in game deserving of it. The npc/pc distinction isnt an in game thing for me most the time. If your charicter jumps out and starts murdering random villagers and i am playing somone with morals, ethics, good, ect, your going down.


if my character has morals and your character starts murdering at random, why the heck were we adventuring together in the first place?
the simple way to avoid this scenario is to plan the characters in session zero, and make sure that nobody would have reasons to kill nobody else

[Gizmogidget]

if my character has morals and your character starts murdering at random, why the heck were we adventuring together in the first place?
the simple way to avoid this scenario is to plan the characters in session zero, and make sure that nobody would have reasons to kill nobody else

Claps loudly.

[Vahnavoi]

This is a side point but, i just dont support the group is the most important thing.

Oh, I don't support it either - which is why I made a distinction between a party foul and a game foul. :smallamused: If my players want to play their characters as a functional team, that's on them. I, as a GM, have no reason to require or enforce that.

[False God]

Hey guys! I need your honest opinion on this one:

is it a "party foul" to kill a fellow player? I recently did two, not so long ago.
Murder is usually illegal, so I would advise against killing other players.


The guys and I were doing our usual D&D session (3.5 basics; this campaign does not even have the Monk Class, like post 2 and pre-3.5).

Session 1: (we are all buddies in real life here)

One of our players who is also a buddy of ours (who also tends to be an ******* in real-life, usually just for a cheap laugh) plays a Chaotic-Neutral character. Due to a bad rap (DM was rolling good, and ours stinks) in a combat situation, we were about to face a TPK. When the inevitable was about to happen, this guy again (who never misses the chance to "remind" us, that his character is CN and announces that he will leave us to save his own ass).

One of our players is already out of commission (about to reach -10hp, he never made it), the other just went down (now unconscious, also later on not making it), leaving me (a wizard that is out of spells, and definitely the squishiest member) and him (who is unscathed and barely contributed to this fight). When rest of our opponents locked-in on us (already lost interest on the "dead" ones), I asked him "what now?", only to see that he is gone (already high-tailed it out of there). I ran for cover (whilst taking hits), and used the last thing I got: ring of invisibility, and slowly escaped (as they go after us running the opposite way). I was limp the opposite direct, I somehow ran across where he was hiding. Still invisible, I pulled a dagger, crept up behind him, pulled his head back, stabbed and slit his neck, instantly ending his characters (rolls did not make it).

In the end, the guys had to roll up new characters, including him, and I bet his new character will be hell bent on destroying mine (and me). And knowing our DM (probably to make it simple), my character will eventually party-up with these "new guys".
I mean, as long as you guys had fun and were cool with it. Though I really don't like when players make new characters who carry over OOC grudges. I mean, I guess you're all buddies, but your "friend" doesn't really sound like one. But hey whatever floats your boat.



Session 2: (same DM, same campaign, different set of players who are younger than us and are friends of his)

One of his players (whom I was told has anxiety issues in real life), tends to be not just quite vocal with her thoughts but with her actions as well (to the point that she gives us "the bird" as if we are that close, and/or that she is spitting on our faces if she does not agree). You might say, she is quite a character!
Question: the player does this or the character?


Continuing from our last session, the party was about to face a boss, who is way WAY out of our league (an ancient evil that can kill us just by looking at us, and we are what? level 4). The boss decided to forget about us ransacking her place (and decimating her defenses), and decided to cut us a deal: she will spare our lives, in exchange for her (this player's character; who is quite the munchkin stat-wise, born from unbelievably amazing stat rolls; her gameplay otherwise is another story), which definitely the players did not agree on.

The party (originally 5 of them; plus me, who was just "hired" to join this mission, and our DM's "NPC", his personal character who later on joined, but did not do much, except act as a subtle voice of reason, a futile attempt to prevent this impending TPK) were dead set into fighting the boss. As weapons were drawn, the first to fall (unconscious) after taking one tap and the back, is the party's "ringer", the barbarian. The next ones who "fell" are the wizard and the ranger (who were on "auto-pilot" by the DM, both players physically absent). The cleric, who tried to attack from behind, only to get his behind pummeled. Our DM's "NPC", also a cleric, just stood there frozen (apparently was petrified; spell or scared out of his wits? DM never specified). This leaves me (a paladin), and her (a rogue). As the rogue tries intently to look for a way, the boss locked in on me. I jokingly said "Here! Take her! She's housebroken!". The rogue responded by stabbing me with her dagger (she missed; the player then not only gave me "the bird" actually told me to {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}). Having enough of that, I drew my greatsword, swung it like a bat, hitting the flat part at the back of her head of the rogue, rendering her unconscious (she never saw it coming, and let alone dodge it).
"Anxiety issues" or not I wouldn't play with this person. Whatever their "issue" is seems more to do with self control and terrible interpersonal skills which are IMO (I've played with these people before) are an incredibly bad recipie for a group-based game. The game isn't her counselor or her time to work out her issues.


Unbeknownst to the rogue, the boss was already talked to me telepathically, and as best judgement, I decided to agree with her demands. The boss, true to her word, opened the "locked" room, and let me walk away. As I leave the ziggurat and walked away from it, I later on came across to the rest of the party who are all still unconscious (thrown out and teleported there by the boss). Nothing much I can do, I just sat there and waited, or until at least the 2 clerics wakes up.

Session ended with the players (except the DM) giving me "the look". One of them (who played the cleric) asked "I though paladins are supposed to be good and righteous!", and other (who played the barbarian) went "Paladins should not be afraid of anything, and you actually chickened out!?". And as for her (who played the rogue), she was so pissed off that she does not even know how to confront me. I threw them the classic line: "Lawful Good does not necessarily mean Lawful Nice!" and added "It also does not mean Lawful Stupid!". DM also never mentioned (yet) if I should atone for that.

Our DM later on admitted to me as well that he was quite pissed-off at this session. He was waiting for a response when we faced the boss, but everyone (these players) "ignored" him by stalling with something else (like: stood quiet, look at their phones, changing the topic, asking irrelevant questions, remembering something funny back then, ect... ect...). This happened A LOT when the boss showed up, causing delays. It was so annoying to him that he was THIS CLOSE into making this as a TPK.

In the end, our DM mentioned to me that he offered her to roll-up a new character for continue on playing, which she apparently has not responded to. And yes, before storming out of the gaming place, little miss sunshine's parting words for me is to "{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}". I responded by raising my coffee and said "I'll drink to that!". (DM once mentioned that she really loves her character, to the point that she already made TONS of fanart and comics about her)

So, is this a "foul", or am I just being paranoid here?
From an in-game standpoint, she attacked you first, which by most laws or paladin codes I'd assume your character should be able to defend themselves. But it's probably a code/law violation to just hand her over to the Big Bad and saving your neck at the expense of hers is probably something your character will need to attone for. Depending on your specific paladin order, its codes, and the god it follows, or whatever your DM says.

From an out-of-game standpoint, good riddance to bad rubbish. I've had "good" or "LG" characters kill party members who went too far, sometimes it helps get the player back in line, but this player doesn't sound like they even have a line to get back into. In the past when dealing with that, when the DM wouldn't boot them from the group, myself and several players just split off and started a new game. I've no interest in dealing with other people's personal problems.

[Trafalgar]

Not "Is it a party foul?" That's a question about morality, which we aren't even aloud to discuss on this forum.



We can't discuss morality? Did they change the posting rules for the site? How are we supposed to have discussions about anything related to alignment?

[GrayDeath]

We can't discuss morality? Did they change the posting rules for the site? How are we supposed to have discussions about anything related to alignment?

We are more than free to discuss InGame/CHaracter Morality/Religion/etc to our hearts content.

It is against the Forum rules to discuss real world/player Morality/Religion/etc though.


On Topic. Your group(s) seem horribly toxic to me.

Are you having fun playing like that? I know I would not (I tend to play to relax, or to enjoy the Story, or the Groups Interplay, nothing of which I would be able to do in such surroundings...).

[KillianHawkeye]

We are more than free to discuss InGame/CHaracter Morality/Religion/etc to our hearts content.

It is against the Forum rules to discuss real world/player Morality/Religion/etc though.

Even IRL morality would be fine to discuss if it were possible to do so without verging onto religion, but I recognize that's fairly difficult when most people take their morals from their religious beliefs. We could, perhaps, discuss real world philosophical beliefs regarding morality, but again it's a slippery slope into religious discussion.


On Topic. Your group(s) seem horribly toxic to me.

Yes, I agree. I don't think I would stay in a group with a DM or players like the ones the OP describes.

[Trafalgar]

We are more than free to discuss InGame/CHaracter Morality/Religion/etc to our hearts content.

It is against the Forum rules to discuss real world/player Morality/Religion/etc though.



I just reread the rules to see if there was a change I wasn't aware of. The Forum Rules say nothing about morality, either real world or in character. If discussing morality was against the rules, a simple statement like "Murder is wrong" would be a violation.

I wonder if you think it is a forbidden topic because discussions about morality often touch on religion or politics which are clearly against the Forum Rules.

[GrayDeath]

Even IRL morality would be fine to discuss if it were possible to do so without verging onto religion, but I recognize that's fairly difficult when most people take their morals from their religious beliefs. We could, perhaps, discuss real world philosophical beliefs regarding morality, but again it's a slippery slope into religious discussion.



Yes, I agree. I don't think I would stay in a group with a DM or players like the ones the OP describes.


You arer of course correct, but, as youa greed, aboiding going there is hard in most cases.
So yes, Trafalgar, that was the Direction of my post.

No, I do not "think that because of it", I am however, as Killian put it, aware that it will almost always lead towards the line we should not cross, and so said so. :)

Also, as an afterthought.: Since I was accused of creating a Toxic Game by "insisting on my Players doing things a certain way" (I Insisted that Characters of high level more or less having climbed the ranks of a continent wide Rebellion against a Divination supported Empire should always try to keep a low profile, and when they didnt also said so InGame...), there is of course a massive space between what one palyer might find toxic, and what another might.

So, to add to my above post:

If yopu and your group do not see this general attitude of "You hurt me, I hurt you", bad jokes, PVP actions and similar as toxic, thats of course your rperogative, I am not trying to tell you how to play.

I am merely wondering if you (all of you) are actually having fun playing in these groups (at least some/most of the time)?

ANd If I might suggest another solution (outside of the always suggested "talk to your fellow palyers like mature adults" ^^):

About 2007 one of my Players killed the Character of another.

In that group we did not have a hard "no PVP" rule (which given that going by D&D Alignment the 4 party members would have been Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and True Neutral ...would have been a lot to expect^^), but we had a 3 Strike rule.

That meant that the players had to warn their "potential PvP ictims" openly at least twice.

Now, one of the Characters was aiming to blackmail a very powerful Wizard.
he had that material in a special Chest that was antimagical to the extreme.
he did not tell his fellow palyers (in that case actually to avoid them being hurt by betraying Info).

Another player smashed the Chest open, and after having been warned only on ce, the other Player used his Characters TK to "Vader Grip" the other CHaracter to death.
The respective Character had nothing to counter that, as for his magic he needed to be able to either talk, or (he ahd a Dragon Shape) to control his body freely.

We all were surprised, but in retrospect, he had been needling the (slightly paranoid, as said Wizard had been after him for 3 ingame years) the other Character for almost an ingame week.

So we had a situation where all but the palyer of the dead character agreed that the kill was morally/Player Contract wise correct...but it still almost split the group.
The Player of the killed Character came back about 9 months later, and by then had also agrreed, but it was close.


What I intend to say with that is that, even with Evil groups, PvP is almost always detrimental to the Games fun and enjoyment.

Unless of course thats the whole point, like in paranoia or similar Games.

So my suggestion would be to try and aoid PvPing and do more OOC talking.
Might actually lead to more enjoyment all around. :)

[Quertus]

So, to open, an apology. I had a rather… visceral reaction to the story told in the OP, so I felt that there were some concerns that I needed to raise, but I was unable to raise them in a proper fashion. So I want to apologize for the… unprofessional nature of my original reply (I'm sure that there's a better word for what I mean).

That said, I stand by my belief that there is a lot going on in the OP - a lot of behavior from pretty much every actor detailed that there would likely be value to the group(s) to put that behavior under the microscope and evaluate further.

However, I believe that a "party foul" is less an issue of morality, and more one of Law. (Or, perhaps, that the phrase "informed consent" expresses where I consider the most important moral aspects to reside). What the group *has agreed to* is more important than how a group of strangers feel about it.

Continuing that line of thought, the "morality" of the actions depends on how expectations had been set.

I don't know what actions were taken by whom to set what expectations. I can only say that, for the cooperative game that *I* would expect by default from D&D, the story felt to have contained numerous party fouls, not just the two that the OP was asking about.

I felt - and still feel - that getting to the underlying reasons for *why* the game so deviated from my expectations is important.

Perhaps the OP has groups that play the game a very different way, with a very different set of assumptions, and they like it that way.

Perhaps the OP has groups that play the game a very different way, with a very different set of assumptions, because they've never imagined that the game could be played any other way.

Perhaps there are some underlying issues in the social dynamic that need to be resolved, and are manifesting in the game.

Perhaps it's just "my guy", writ large.

Perhaps… etc etc etc. - we just can't know without a conversation.

I erroneously believed that my initial attempt at responding to this thread would be conducive to expressing the above sentiment, and to paving the way for that conversation (yes, I really am that bad at communicating sometimes; in retrospect, I can see how bad that was).

Hopefully, this attempt will be more fruitful (and won't make moderators or my future self :smallfurious: :smallredface:)

[Duff]

- admittedly, I did this one out of spite (I guess foul on me on this one).
Yes

Also, the fact you thought he would come after your character with a new character shows it was not OK by the table's social contract. You know you're out of line, they know you're out of line and the reason the rest of the party weren't going to jump all over the other guy for coming after you (in and out of character) is they know that too.

A better GM would have let both characters part ways. With optional hilarity ensuing when the all new party are in a bar and see people who could easily be those 2 brawling over in the corner




Table 1
He makes that "reminder" everytime he sees a combat situation turns bad (we also tend to, if not, always take that as a joke, because he is the type of guy who is hard to take seriously). Gameplay wise, He is also the first to disappear when trouble (which he started) wildly breaks out. There were also times that he "sold" us out (either to lecherous individuals, or someone who just wants to punch around). At one point, we all have almost came to the decision to just leave him for dead when he fell unconscious to a trap (which basically what he did to us back then). We also used to respond his "reminder" with a "....and if we die, we will kill you!", I guess I was so pissed off, that I decided to be true to my (our) "reminder".

In the end: our DM thought of patching things up here by offering a reset, with a new campaign. And as for that buddy of ours, we decided to just laugh it off (for this is NOT the first time his shenanigans turned out so bad, that it almost caused us our friendships). But I am keeping my guard up, because knowing him, I bet and know that payback is inevitable.

It sounds like there are issues with this player and that's frustrating. But making it a table with 2 problem players doesn't improve the situation


The 2nd one - Yeah there's a few issues here.
GM does appear to be picking on that one player - never really OK.
It seems like that player lacks the social skills to manage that. - Even more "Not OK"
That player may not be fun to have at the table. That's an issue to manage outside the game

You've joined in picking on the victim here which is Not Cool
Paladins should be the "let her go, take me instead" person in the party. Not the "take her instead of me".
As an "extra" to the session brought in to make up the numbers, there's likely to be more expectation of you dying heroically to save the others. So that may also be part of why they're annoyed at your treason.

Last but not least:
The DM getting annoyed at the players avoiding engaging with the situation is understandable. That's an issue to deal with out of game. It probably comes from players who can't see what to do next and are avoiding it in the desperate hope someone else will either come up with a better plan or someone else will make the decision which dooms the party.

Suggestions for how to do that:
"OK folks, maybe we should have a break now before we address this, who wants pizza?"
"This is a tricky situation. While you work out what you want to do, I'm going to the loo"
"OK, I can see no one's sure where to go with this one, does someone want to make a [social skill] roll and I'll tell you what you get out of it or are you going to try and fight your way out?"
"You're right to feel this is a fight you can't win. As the GM I can assure you now, if you decide your characters would fight, it won't be a TPK"
Build trust within the playing group. Make sure it's OK to make mistakes. The player who dooms the party may get teased a bit, but never more than they can take and not as a major theme by next session.