Player vs. Player

[Hallavast]

In a session I recently ran, two of my players made certain decisions and as a result, two of their characters came to blows. I eventually had to settle the situation out of character before one character killed the other.

I'll try not to bore you with specifics, but the situation was as follows:

The party was tracking a band of goblins who'd burned the party cleric's farm and killed his family. The cleric at this point was a DMPC that I was planning on having removed from the party (because the player who played him wasn't able to attend the game anymore). The party found the goblins' hideout abandoned save for one deserter sleeping next to a barrel of booze.

The exchange went as follows:

DM: Cleric yells "I'll gut you, you murdering bastard!" and charges into the room.
Barbarian: I jump on Cleric and wrestle him to the ground before kills the goblin.
DM: Ok, roll grapple ... you grab him and put him in a hold. He yells "what are you doing?" and tries to break free.
Barbarian: I try to knock him out *punches Cleric in the face (critical)*
DM: K. that doesn't knock him out. He tries to break free again... he can't break your hold. Meanwhile, the goblin wakes up and runs into the other room, frightened.
Barbarian: I punch him again...
Druid: I draw my club and attack Barbarian...

Eventually, the barbarian runs away and the rest of the party goes "wtf". The party catches up to the barbarian and offers reconciliation. He refuses with his sword drawn and tells them all to "stay back". The druid brandishes his weapon, and they're about to start at it again. At this point, I'm kinda angry, and I break it up out of character and tell them to grow up so we can get back to the game.

I'm wondering if I made a mistake by doing so. Should I have just let them kill each other and had the loser reroll? I had 20+ pages of notes on this campaign, and I kinda wanted them to at least try some of it. What do y'all think?

Spoiler

Show

For the record, they agreed to drop it, and the game went pretty well from there.

[d13]

And why did the Barbarian start punching the Cleric?

[Dust]

I know you wanted to keep the summary brief, but what was the Barbarian's motivation, if any, to stop the Cleric from slaughtering a goblin?

Ninja'd by D13.

[Eon]

I would have done the same most likely. of course I am planning on starting my DMhood this summer so... yeah.


Also, If Dungeons and Dragons was meant for Player vs. Player it would be called World of Warcraft.

[Hallavast]

And why did the Barbarian start punching the Cleric?

It was a combination of sympaty for the goblin and wanting to interrogate it for information on where the other goblins went.

[drengnikrafe]

If it makes you feel any better, I once accidentally got my PCs to kill each other by getting a random demon to ask them to do so.

[Dyllan]

That depends entirely on your players. Ideally, I'd let them go ahead and play it out. However, if that's going to cause problems between the players (not just the characters), then what you did is probably the right way to go.

[Yukitsu]

Talk about it before you start the game, and if you don't like it, ban it. I happen to like PvP, so if you don't tell me outright that it's banned, and someone gives me a good and viable excuse to use it in character, I generally will, often to my opponents chagrin.

However, if you ban it right off the bat, it tells me that you don't want to have to deal with the problems it can bring up and I won't, no matter how hard other players try to antagonize me. In that event, you have to know who is antagonizing whom, and bring down the hammer on them as well.

[Grumman]

The barbarian was way out of line. If he'd just grappled the cleric while pointing out that interrogating the goblin might provide some useful information, I'd have no problem with his actions. As is, I would fully support the party if they killed him, if he didn't back down or leave on his own.

[Hallavast]

The barbarian was way out of line. If he'd just grappled the cleric while pointing out that interrogating the goblin might provide some useful information, I'd have no problem with his actions.

I agree.

As is, I would fully support the party if they killed him, if he didn't back down or leave on his own.

And how would you feel if he killed one or several of the party members in the process? In other words, you know that you are risking the game dying right there, right? Is the difference between an upercut and a headlock worth throwing 20+ pages of notes out?

[Rasman]

I see two things wrong with this, the Barbarian was taking swings at the Cleric, granted, he's a Barbarian and that's how they settle things, but it's just not a smart thing as a player to do, grappling him yes, beating on him...no...

the druid attacking the barbarian was a bad move as well, this just made the situation worse, had the druid convinced the barbarian that holding the cleric down was good enough, that he didn't need to beat him anymore, you could have continued fairly well with running down the goblin, both players did something stupid

I can see that the barbarian was acting like a barbarian, which they're supposed to, the druid on the other hand, in character, took it a bit far in wanting to fight the Barbarian, especially if he wanted to involve the rest of the party with it

it's probably a good thing you intervened, otherwise it would have just been one big headache for you.

[Grumman]

And how would you feel if he killed one or several of the party members in the process?

By the time the barbarian is fighting the party to the death to protect a goblin that helped murder a former PC's family, that player might as well be actively trying to sabotage your game. If it came down to that, I'd simply rule by DM fiat that he dies and that if he does it again he's not allowed back into the game.

[frogspawner]

They did great roleplaying-wise! It was the druid who violated the unwritten "No PvP" code. But still fine RP. (Maybe he was striking to subdue? If so, not so bad). And you did good too - stepping in to over-rule the RP before it wrecked the game. Sounds like you've got a good group going there!

[Splendor]

I'm going to guess the barbarian didn't have the improved unarmed feat, so that means he was inflicting subdual damage.
When the druid drew his club and attacked, I as the DM would have asked "Do you intend to cave his skull in with a bat or are you trying to knock him out?". If the druid was trying to knock him out then you should of told him to take the -4 for subdual damage.

It's one thing for you to try to subdue someone, it's another when you beat their head with with a wooden bat.

Feel free to let the party kick the barbarian out and look for a new fellow to join. Apparently that barbarian felt that goblins were people and deserved all the rights and privileges of people. Innocent until proven guilty. Who knows maybe in his tribe they lived with goblins, maybe his best friend growing up was a goblin and he wasn't just going to stand by and watch as the cleric killed an innocent guy.

[kamikasei]

Splendor: The problem isn't that the barbarian wanted to prevent the cleric from killing the goblin. The problem is that apparently his way of doing so was to first restrain and then start beating the cleric, without explanation. In fact, at no point does the barbarian explain what he's doing. That's not roleplaying a barbarian, that's roleplaying an idiot.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That's not roleplaying a barbarian, that's roleplaying an idiot.

Must... refrain... from... rimshot...

[Killer Angel]

That's not roleplaying a barbarian, that's roleplaying an idiot.

Agree; I hate when someone thinks that the only proper roleplaying for a barbarian is "arrgh, smash things!". Thog should be a funny exception.
The fault for this situation, falls on both the barbarian and the druid.

[Kol Korran]

i think you did well to intervine, especially since the group continued well after that, and from what you say it seems there were no hurt feelings. i might have intervined earlier, though not necesserily.

as to the barb not explaining his actions- stupid, that's true, but also the druid trying to bhash him. your party may need to work (only a bit), on intention- transmitting skills. or just talk things out.

oh, one more note- you seem quite worried that the 20+ pages notes will go to waste. a few things about that:
- unless you're railroading your players, some of it won't be used in this campaign. how much depends on the inginuity of your players.
- what's not used now can always be recycled for future endeavors. you'll be susrprised how much of my later campaigns were a mish mash of stuff unused from earlier ones.
- don't get attached to the notes, they are but a suggestion and support to the game. get attached to the game as it develops.
- that said, i too have sinned in wanting my ideas and encounters to roll through...

that was a bit long, but all in all- good call on the intervention.
Kol.

[Splendor]

And that goblin was a deserter, maybe he didn't like what the rest of the goblins were doing. Maybe he really wanted to be good. Maybe he tried to fight his fellows to save the poor farmers and left because of this skirmish. (Much like the barbarian is trying to stop the cleric)

We're reading like 8 lines from something that probably went on for 30 mins or more, we don't know what was actually said or not said.

Was nothing said between the PCs during this conflict?
Did all the PCs know that the cleric family was killed?
Did they discuss what they were going to do with the goblins when they found them?
Are all the people playing 12 and think killing each other is fun?
Do goblins have rights in the world their playing in?
Is the druid evil and just been looking for an excuse to kill the barbarian?
Maybe the barbarian got a 6 INT/WIS and was dominating the cleric to show him that he's not to act without the barbarian's say so.
Why did the party chase the barbarian down after the initial fight was over?

[kamikasei]

And that goblin was a deserter, maybe he didn't like what the rest of the goblins were doing. Maybe he really wanted to be good. Maybe he tried to fight his fellows to save the poor farmers and left because of this skirmish. (Much like the barbarian is trying to stop the cleric)

This is phrased as if you're countering someone's response to your earlier post, but I can't see to what you might be replying. No one mentioned the goblin at all.

We're reading like 8 lines from something that probably went on for 30 mins or more, we don't know what was actually said or not said.

Well, yes, we're assuming the OP's description was complete in the relevant details. If the barbarian did, in fact, explain what he was doing during these events, that's highly relevant and the OP should have included it. The clear implication, at least to my eyes, is that he did not offer any explanation.

Maybe the barbarian got a 6 INT/WIS and was dominating the cleric to show him that he's not to act without the barbarian's say so.

In which case the barbarian's player is even more in the wrong for bringing such a character to the table (at least without making it very clear to the other players that this was the case, so that they could handle him appropriately).

Why did the party chase the barbarian down after the initial fight was over?

Because he had just beaten up his teammate, and they needed to know what the hell as going on and, if necessary, deal with the threat he may have posed?

To be clear: it's perfectly reasonable for the barbarian and/or his player not to want the goblin killed and, if the cleric is acting out of blind rage, to physically restrain him. There is no need for you to stand up for the rights and personhood of goblinkind or champion the cause of goodwill between all Int >3 races. It's not reasonable for the barbarian to then start beating up the cleric without explaining what's going on; that turns it from "no Bob, I can't let you do that!" to "hey rest of party, I've gone nuts!". It may be that this is the correct, in-character way for the barbarian to behave, but that doesn't excuse the player bringing so disruptive a character in the first place.

[Hallavast]

I didn't realize it mattered so much..

And that goblin was a deserter, maybe he didn't like what the rest of the goblins were doing. Maybe he really wanted to be good. Maybe he tried to fight his fellows to save the poor farmers and left because of this skirmish. (Much like the barbarian is trying to stop the cleric)

Well, for all the party knew at first, this could have been true I guess. I didn't even give the schmuck a name. I assumed he stayed behind because he was a coward and the rest of the goblins were marching to war. He figured he might scavenge what was left from the hideout. The party ended up questioning him right after the barbarian fled and learned what they needed to know. The sorcerer then proceeded to fry him with a scortching ray, because he also had family killed in the farm raid. Nobody really cared about the goblin dying at that point.

We're reading like 8 lines from something that probably went on for 30 mins or more, we don't know what was actually said or not said.

Neither the barbarian nor the druid said anything in the way of intentions or protest untill the druid whipped out a club. The barbarian's player was a little amused at the whole thing. The druid explained his actions out of character (then later in character afterwards) that he took offense to the barbarian attacking another party member. Funny thing about that is the druid and the cleric were'nt even that close. The cleric and the sorcerer had just joined the party not two days ago (in game).

Was nothing said between the PCs during this conflict?

The barbarian player didn't take it the least bit personal. The druid simply made his argument after the fact, and said very little in character. The rogue wasn't with the party at the time, and the player was actually falling asleep during the whole thing. The sorcerer player was in the bathroom until they got to questioning the goblin in the next room.

Did all the PCs know that the cleric family was killed?

Probably all of them except for the rogue who'd missed last session, but he wasn't there anyway.

Did they discuss what they were going to do with the goblins when they found them?

They had encountered part of the group of goblins before, and the consensus was to kill them all.

Are all the people playing 12 and think killing each other is fun?

No, but they are seniors in highschool and need to grow up sometimes.

Do goblins have rights in the world their playing in?

The "goblins" are actually draconians (from dragonlance). I just used "goblin" for the sake of simplicity, because not everyone knows what a draconian is. In short they are a generally evil draconic race bred from the corrupted eggs of metallic dragons via dark rituals. They were created to be soldiers, spies, and assassins for the Queen of Darkness. Many draconians have since become disenchanted with warfare and have started their own nation, but the other races still view them with contempt. So no, not really considered people. Humans et al. regard them as the same as goblins.

Is the druid evil and just been looking for an excuse to kill the barbarian?

He's a CN Minotaur druid. Minotaurs of Krynn are different than MM minotaurs. They're more humanlike and seafarring. They are very warlike in general, and in the literature I've read of them they have a society that loosely models that of Imperial Rome (with gladiatorial bouts determining station and rank).

Maybe the barbarian got a 6 INT/WIS and was dominating the cleric to show him that he's not to act without the barbarian's say so.

Nope. Average int/wis scores. He justified his actions by saying "I'm a barbarian. He was resisting, so I tried to knock him out."

Why did the party chase the barbarian down after the initial fight was over?

They didn't chase him down. He just happened to flee in the direction of the warband they were all chasing.

[BooNL]

You guys are all forgetting the most important thing: The cleric had changed from a PC to a DMPC.

This gives the barbarian every right to kill the thing.

With fire.

[Rasman]

That's not roleplaying a barbarian, that's roleplaying an idiot.

I sense...irony afoot...

isn't it kinda implied that Barbarians are kinda stupid? I mean, find me one Barbarian who has HIGH ranks in Diplomacy. Srsly, Barbarians, as a class, aren't meant to really talk things out, they are more doers than thinkers, imo. The Barb could have toned it down, but ultimately I'd still lay blame on the druid and the rest of the party for not taking the initiative to say something to the Barb about still restraining the Cleric while they run down the goblin. But that's my opinion.

[kamikasei]

isn't it kinda implied that Barbarians are kinda stupid?

That's a stereotype.

I mean, find me one Barbarian who has HIGH ranks in Diplomacy.

Conan, though that might just be his CHA modifier.

I'm not suggesting the barbarian should have made a convincing, impassioned speech about the merits of nonviolent conflict resolution. I'm suggesting that he should have told the cleric and the others why he was restraining and subduing the cleric. That doesn't require high mental scores, a good diplomacy modifier, or "thinking rather than doing". It's simply the difference between "the barbarian has gone nuts! Take him down!" and "oh, the barbarian thinks we should question the goblin before we kill him. That's why he's sitting on the cleric's chest and punching him in the face".

[Grumman]

I mean, find me one Barbarian who has HIGH ranks in Diplomacy. Srsly, Barbarians, as a class, aren't meant to really talk things out, they are more doers than thinkers, imo.

How much Diplomacy do you think it takes to say "Don't kill it, capture it"? Here's a hint: none.

The Barb could have toned it down, but ultimately I'd still lay blame on the druid and the rest of the party for not taking the initiative to say something to the Barb about still restraining the Cleric while they run down the goblin. But that's my opinion.

The barbarian attacked the cleric without provocation, without explaining his reasoning and you're blaming the party for not leaving him in charge of restraining the innocent man he's beating unconscious? Please tell me you're joking.

[Starbuck_II]

It's simply the difference between "the barbarian has gone nuts! Take him down!" and "oh, the barbarian thinks we should question the goblin before we kill him. That's why he's sitting on the cleric's chest and punching him in the face".

What if the Barbarian's tribe solves discussions this way?
I mean, the big are in charge as they sit on the little's chest and punch them in the face.

[kamikasei]

What if the Barbarian's tribe solves discussions this way?
I mean, the big are in charge as they sit on the little's chest and punch them in the face.

Then the player is being an ass^*. As I said: you can come up with a reason why it's in character for the barbarian to behave like this. That doesn't excuse the player's choice to make such a character.

^*Or playing in a comedic game or with fair warning to the others and no objections, etc., which don't seem to apply here.

[SSGoW]

The barbarian was way out of line. If he'd just grappled the cleric while pointing out that interrogating the goblin might provide some useful information, I'd have no problem with his actions. As is, I would fully support the party if they killed him, if he didn't back down or leave on his own.

Well not really... If the cleric was going to kill a goblin then it would have taken 1 or 2 attacks depending on the cleric. If the barbarian said "hey don't do that" the cleric would have killed the goblin. And the barbarian tried to knock the cleric out not kill him (snapping his neck or something). Besides the only diplomacy most barbarians know is restraining then intimidate -_-

[Grumman]

Well not really... If the cleric was going to kill a goblin then it would have taken 1 or 2 attacks depending on the cleric. If the barbarian said "hey don't do that" the cleric would have killed the goblin.

You apparently didn't read what I posted, because I said physically restraining him and saying "hey, don't do that" would be fine by me.

[kamikasei]

Well not really... If the cleric was going to kill a goblin then it would have taken 1 or 2 attacks depending on the cleric. If the barbarian said "hey don't do that" the cleric would have killed the goblin. And the barbarian tried to knock the cleric out not kill him (snapping his neck or something).

The post you quote specifically says that grappling the cleric was okay. The problem is that, having prevented the cleric from killing the goblin, the barbarian proceeded to beat the cleric up (why?) without so much as saying "don't kill the goblin". Hell, in character that'd seem like more reason for the rest of the party to kill the goblin - apparently it's an enchanter or psion with powers to set its foes on one another!