Intentional Infighting

[Jastermereel]

I've seen a number of posts about how to discourage infighting brought on by obnoxious rogues or "evil" parties, but is it a bad idea to encourage some strife between characters?

The party has been playing together for 5 levels, since around September, and are about to enter into a major stage of the campaign, the Red Hand of Doom module. However, I was thinking about giving the characters some inter-personal conflicts to deal with, but I wasn't sure if it might help give them some interesting role-play fodder, or if it might be a really really really bad idea.

For example, one of them is a goliath barbarian who has been traveling far from home as a diplomat (of sorts) gauging public opinion on the idea of an alliance between her people (a northern tribe of goliaths) and that of the locals (a large kingdom, largely populated by humans). Her people have been under attack for a while (I'm thinking Gnolls but we never really spelled it out) and thought an alliance might alleviate some of the strain. However, the idea I had is that while she's been out traveling (for at least several weeks), the Red Hand might have dealt with the Gnolls, and formed an alliance with the Goliaths (to add some further flair to their ranks). She and the rest of the party will find this out together when she encounters one of her tribe sent to debrief her, end her mission, and bring her home to prepare for war. Given the bond the character has formed with some of the others, I suspect this will not go well at all for the messenger. While she might be open to the idea of going to war against the people she's been traveling among for some time, she will likely balk if ordered to kill her traveling companions so that there are no "local spies" to report back as a warning.

Is it a bad idea to throw a potentially party-sundering choice into the mix?

Another twist being considered involves two characters, one seeking revenge for the murder of her grandmother and mentor by unknown agents and a rogue from a guild that was wiped out (again, likely by Red-Hand related elements). Is it wrong to foment strife by tying the backstories together with the rogue's group being the responsible party in the grandmother's murder? The rogue wouldn't be one who was directly responsible, but would still be tied to the event.

This is my first real campaign (I'd subbed in for the previous DM while he hit some rough patches in grad-school, with a mini-campaign and a silly monstrous campaign), and it's been going rather well so far I feel, but I wanted to throw the characters a curve-ball or two. I just don't want to have the curve-ball hit them in the head, injure party/player morale and have them walk to first base, over-stretching a metaphor along the way.

[Siosilvar]

I've seen a number of posts about how to discourage infighting brought on by obnoxious rogues or "evil" parties, but is it a bad idea to encourage some strife between characters?

It's only a bad idea if your players can't handle it. If you see tensions running high outside the game, remember you can just say "Nevermind, that didn't happen." Hopefully they'll take it well.

[J.Gellert]

This kind of thing depends solely on your group.

That said...

From my experience, you can definitely do it, but you need to be mature about it (even if it's funny as hell) and try to do it with one-shot throwaway characters.

Losing a long-term investment (mechanical and psychological) hurts.

The way you suggest seems "light" enough because fighting is easily avoidable, if for example the rogue distances himself from his former group.

Now if you think a "potential" party-sundering choice is actually likely... I wouldn't do it.

[oxybe]

in our last campaign that ended months ago, we had some headbutting between my (openly evil with the party) warlock and my roommate's swashbuckler/rogue (who viewed my warlock as a dangerous man if left to his own devices, but could be pushed in a direction for the greater good, but if had to, he would kill me).

this was intentional, but we made sure that it didn't spill over to the rest of the party and that the party came first.

you generally don't want to include a situation that would cause the party to splinter. it's kind of a jerk move to pull on a group, unless it's at a players request to help him move his PC outside of the story and introduce a new one.

[DruchiiConversion]

If you do it, it's more or less essential that you let your players know about it in advance. When it arises on its own, it's usually ugly and leads to OOC problems; when people play Paranoia, they have a lot of fun! That also gives them a good chance to bring up any major objections.

[Petrankov]

Interparty conflict makes for great roleplaying. I agree with Oxybe though that you do not want it to cause a party to splinter unless you can deal with running a split group for a while until the entire group comes back together. My games usually have some interparty conflict mostly because they have strong disagreements on what to do about a particular situation. On occassion I will write some conflict into backgrounds just to spice things up.

[Grogmir]

OP - I love the second idea - trying backstories together like that is great - it brings two into conflict - hopefully you'll leave em enough clues that they can sort out some past problem - together.

The 1st sitaution I don't like - the idea is good - but the effect - basically asking one character to leave the game OR turn their back on their people/backstory Neither will feel great for that player - and both will feel forced.

Happy Rollin'

[Choco]

It does depend on your party, but from my experiences (on either side of the screen) I have never had a party completely fall apart due to evil characters in good parties (we don't allow that unless the player in question proves he can make it work, and the rest of the group is cool). But we have had PLENTY of group splits (fatal or otherwise) result from Chaotic Stupid characters. That and you always get a player that has their character use the "well fine, we can go our seperate ways next town then!" line when they don't have their way, but that is mostly just immaturity and lack of RP experience and goes away quickly (AKA when they get tired of rolling up a new character every session ).

That being said, you gotta be sure the party can handle it. If you trust the players to play the conflict out without resulting in OOC hard feelings and/or splitting the party, then by all means go for it.

[valadil]

Is it a bad idea to throw a potentially party-sundering choice into the mix?

It's not a bad idea. But you have to know your party. I would only run this type of plot with players I'm used to.

Killing each other is not the only bad outcome. Mature roleplayers will not always resort to stabbing people they disagree with. However they may reach the point where they don't want to adventure together anymore. Each player has to be prepared to have their character walk away from the part. If you have players who can handle that and then roll up a replacement, you should be fine with interparty strife.

Another twist being considered involves two characters, one seeking revenge for the murder of her grandmother and mentor by unknown agents and a rogue from a guild that was wiped out (again, likely by Red-Hand related elements). Is it wrong to foment strife by tying the backstories together with the rogue's group being the responsible party in the grandmother's murder? The rogue wouldn't be one who was directly responsible, but would still be tied to the event.

This twist depends entirely on the rogue. The only way I can see it resolving without breaking the party is if the rogue sold out his guild.

[Choco]

This twist depends entirely on the rogue. The only way I can see it resolving without breaking the party is if the rogue sold out his guild.

I don't think it matters, with the guild being wiped out and all. It depends on how well the 2 chars got along before this came to light and how understanding they both will be. If the rogue honestly feels bad about it and the other char realizes that the rogue had nothing to do with it personally, it should work out fine.

[Lin Bayaseda]

The risk of disintegrating the group doesn't seem to be worth the benefits. Just my personal opinion.

[valadil]

I don't think it matters, with the guild being wiped out and all. It depends on how well the 2 chars got along before this came to light and how understanding they both will be. If the rogue honestly feels bad about it and the other char realizes that the rogue had nothing to do with it personally, it should work out fine.

D'oh! That's what happens when I skim posts. I thought the guild was still active even if the rogue wasn't involved anymore.

[Another_Poet]

I would talk to the players and ask them in abstract terms (i.e. don't give away the plot).

I would tell them you have an idea for an encounter you think would be a lot of fun, and it could give incentive for some of their character to question or doubt the others. Ask them if they are up for this kind of story arc and whether they would enjoy roleplaying some intra-party conflict with the intention of eventually resolving it. Be clear you're not trying to break up the party.

If they are intrigued do it. If they seem put off I would skip it.

My players hate this kind of stuff. I've seen other groups handle it really well.

[Severus]

I think asking the players is a good idea.

I also think that if this is a long term campaign, don't do it. If they're roleplaying well, then even if the players feel no animosity, the characters may well, and you'll have festering wounds that won't fix until one player leaves.

[Jastermereel]

Ok ok! I get it!

Thanks for the advice everyone. I appreciate the experience-based cautionary notes. The latter idea is probably off the table, and the former will run only in a very modified way, creating further motivation rather than potential strife. Perhaps the debriefing agent will mention that he is suspicions about the Red Hand's alliance, informing the character of the news from home but suggesting she investigate and not return home just yet. Or something like that.