tpmiller08
I've been running my dnd 4e campaign for my group of friends, and party conflict has driven someone to change their character to avoid it (the PC has stated multiple times that this is his favorite character of all time.)
The PC thinking of switching characters is a rogue. Most of his sidequests require him to be sneaky about it, and not let the party in on what he's doing.
The last session, he left to do some poison trades in the middle of the night. Due to 'lack of trust' the Cleric of Bahamet was checking the rogue's bed throughout the night, which was obviously empty at one point. An argument followed, where the rogue was bullied (in my opinion at least.) It was kept in-game, but I feel like the cleric had a problem with the rogue doing rogue things out of game, and then declared in-game reasons for his actions. At the end of the session, I talked with the cleric further, and his points all led to that his character would never accept a rogue or thief type character in the game. Keep in mind, the rogue has never stolen from the party, stolen in front of the party, or anything like that. His skills allow others to recognize him as a rogue and maybe a thief. Other than that, there have been no signs of distrust.
So one player's character design has now alienated, and disrupted another player's character. Which I feel is unfair.
This occurs at least every other campaign in a similar manner, involving the same players and sometimes others. I can't think of any recourse to keep everyone happy, which happens from time to time. However, it really doesn't sit well that someone is losing their favorite PC to what feels to me like out of game bullying.
If anyone has dealt with a situation similar, I would love any input or advice you have. I've been checking blogs for hours, and I can't find any DM's with the same dilemma. I understand a need to roleplay party conflict and tensions, and I feel it adds to the game. This seems to cross the line though.
Comments
I have had similar experiences to you in the past and the most important thing is that basically you have to give the players what they want. It sounds like you have a bit of conflict between Character Play and Out of Character Play and players are experts at twisting these two things from one to the other.
The cleric may be within his rights to check the room of another character although I think you should ask him whether he really would do such a thing to a colleague. How would any member of a group feel if another member did this, regardless of alignment? I feel players often forget that forming a party is quite a sacred bond that should really overide alignment and petty differences unless there is blatant conflict. (There are different kinds of law - law of the land, ethical law, party law). It sounds to me as if your cleric is using his OOC knowledge to make a flimsy excuse for spying on his friends. Has he had any real "in game" reason to do this?
I think you did the right thing by talking to the cleric after the game, as in-game, in-character bullying can be tricky when it starts operating on a player to player level, but it seems your cleric feels he has an in-game reason to distrust the character. If, as you say, there has been no evidence of the rogue having betrayed the party in any way, then I feel it is unfair of the cleric to act in such a way.
You said: "I talked with the cleric further, and his points all led to that his character would never accept a rogue or thief type character in the game"
I think it is important for him to remember that being of "ROGUE" class is not a crime in itself. It is an unfortunate character class name due to the connotation, and perhaps something like "TRAVELLER" would be a better name for the rogue class. As you rightly justify, we accept these characters into our groups for the different skills they offer (which are very helpful, if not essential to ANY party). Even if your cleric KNEW (with proven evidence or testament) that the rogue character was a "THIEF", I feel the party may still accept him, knowing this, but having an understanding that he was LOYAL TO THE PARTY.
Rogues DO run the risk of being mistrusted in LAWFUL parties and I think there is also an onus on the rogue character to show he can be trusted by the party. However, it would be unfair if your rogue character could no longer play his DESIGNED character due to a petty squabble.
I would have an out of game chat with the two characters (maybe even with ALL characters) about PARTY LOYALTY. Perhaps they can come to realise that they each have skills that are useful to the party as a whole, and maybe they could make an IN-GAME pledge to each other as a party, much like a Pirate's Charter.
Remember, just being chaotic or evil doesn't mean that the rogue character has to act that way at all times. He has his own safety to think of and could be quite GOOD and LAWFUL towards the party, while still retaining his inherent selfishness - because it is in his interest to be so.
If the Cleric cannot come to terms with this after such conversations and feels he cannot work with the rogue in the group, then you should invite that player to roll up a new character.
If the Rogue stays in the party, but is found to steal from his colleagues or cause harm to any of them, then he will get what he deserves and the party should be as harsh as they like in their justice.
Hope some of these thoughts are useful.
twiggyleaf
"I met a traveller from an antique land....."
CotM May 2016: Mysteria: set in Wolfgang Baur’s MIDGARD.
Previous CotM Aug 2012: Shimring: High Level Multiplanar Campaign
Inner Council Member
I've encountered in-party mistrust, etc. before, but to my recollection, it's always been valid, character-driven tension....this sounds like dude just wants to be a jerk to other dude, and that should be dealt with.
My advice is to talk to the other members of the group and see how they feel, possibly nudging them in the direction of ostercising (sp?) the cleric for his "classism," forcing him to re-think his behavior, or rolling up a more understanding character.
If your assumptions are correct, though, and he's got an out of game issue with the other player, he'll probably just make a paladin so he has a built in excuse to be a mistrusting douche, though. hahaha.
All joking aside....no one here was at the game, so I think you go to those that were before making any judgements/adjustments, and see how they feel about what went down.
Good advice Poutine. It's sort of hard to weigh in here without having a bit more insight into the situation. Could be the guy running the Cleric is just role playing how his character would react to illegal activity. If the Cleric is a lawful good type, then really why _would_ he want to consort with someone he perceives to be breaking the law for selfish motives? Could be this is just a case of incompatible character builds. I've seen this sort of thing happen before and really what it boils down to is making sure up front that everyone sees eye to eye on issues such as alignment, racial hostilities, religious hostilities etc. So for instance, it might not be a good idea to allow both a Paladin and a Rogue build in the same campaign party if you sense that the two PCs are going to run into persistent conflict.
On the other hand, if, as you believe, this guy is just on some power trip and is trying to use his character as a rational for manipulating other players at the table, then it sounds as if you've got a problem on your hands. No one enjoys a bully, and if you've noticed a pattern of manipulation with this guy before then you may need to make some tough choices. Talking with your other players who have played with this guy and know his personality will be able to give you a broader perspective on the situation. They might also offer you some advice on how to approach the two players in question. Good luck though, I don't envy you the position your in.
Cheers,
-Arsheesh
I will have a very hard time if I choose to run the Vidria campaign for my "inner circle" of friends, because I have straight-up decided that *I* will not tolerate a particular duo at the table. They get along okay, *except* at the gaming table. And when I have floated the idea of the campaign to folks who were neither of the two, I've flat-out asked them "I am not tolerating both in the same campaign, so would you rather game with M or D?"
Just some thoughts. Good luck!
I will say though that I've played in a WOD campaign with a Vampire and Hunter who actively fought and thwart each other over multiple campaigns (the vamp even cutting the latter's hand off) but played the conflict in such a way that they actually enhanced the game. I've also played a D&D game which went TPK because the (literally) pacifist cleric wouldn't heal the necromancer...
Deliberate Inter-party conflict can be awesome and accidental conflict can pass smoothly if everyone involved is mature about it and remembers that you're all friends and you're all there to have fun... together!
Problems arise when players bring real life issues to the table; players 'roleplay' at the expense harmony; someone's just being a #$%^&! or as it sounds like in this case, one person is 'playing against type'.
It doesn't matter if you're the Assassin or the Paladin, if you come to the table with a character who is going to rub the rest of the party the wrong way, or work against the general party flow then I think you need to be prepared to compromise, in and out of game to keep the game flowing and your friends happy.
As a GM you need to look at what kind of game you're running and what kind of party your players have created and find a way to make a compromise.
A good general rule is that characters should be allowed (even encouraged) to enter into mutually agreed conflict as long as it is not at the expense of the story, or the fun (and dignity) of everyone at the table.
1. Set up a rewards system for the group working as a team. This can be better treasures, xp bonuses, or something else. One week I offered to treat pizza and beer if there were no "IN character" conflicts that could have been avoided.
2. Sit down with the group and tell them as a whole, We are here to have fun. So anyone who ruins the fun for the group gets no experience for the game session. Make it clear that palying in character is not an excuse to stir up trouble. The goal is the adventure, not party infighting.
3. if one or more players refuse to compromise their character concept for the betterment of the team, then suggest they make up a different character. I have ended a campaign because of one hard headed player and started fresh without him.
Communication is key but not every player is open to communication. Some are just too caught up in their own fantasy world to enjoy the one you are creating. Good luck
"Star Trek Late Night":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/star-trek-late-night
"Star Trek Late Night":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/star-trek-late-night
:) But part of it too is making sure everyone is there for the Right Reason, so to speak. I always make sure my players are there to play a role playing GAME.
For example: somehow make it that the cleric gets captured or kidnapped and the rogue is the only one who can possibly save him. I know sometimes PC's are hard to steer where you want them to go, so I like to pass them a little bribe --- slide him a note that says, "1000 XP if you can save the cleric" or something like that.
Once the rogue rescues the cleric, perhaps then the cleric can see his usefullness and give some trust. If you make the adventure where the rogue has to use his thieving skills to accomplish the rescue, even better.
You have to remember, just because you know someone - doesn't mean that they can be trusted. I know for myself personally, trust has to be earned. Perhaps the cleric is the same.
I then set up an encounter where the party was separated. I put all the characters who had a problem with one another in the same room, and had them a rather tough battle. Hasn't been a problem since besides an occasional snide remark here and there.
Thanks for all the advice =) Came in very useful!
Just trying to help out.
Kidding.
I agree with Poutine and Arsh. Here's my input. If the cleric is just being a (out of game) bully, that's BS and unfair to Mr. Rogue. I'd persuade the party to "distrust" the cleric for snooping through the rogue's belongings, in the middle of the night. That seems like shady behavior, right? Turn the tables on the cleric for being a douche-nozzle. However, If the rogue and the cleric are just simply incompatible and the cleric really wouldn't accept the rogue being in the party, it wouldn't be fair for either player to have to roll up another character to cater to the opposing player. Maybe you can handle it by them having an in-game dispute that leads to a duel? Each player can have terms, based on their victory... Or you can have them duel to the death. >=D
AnthonyDluzak also had an excellent idea, as well. Putting them in a situation where trust can be built. Then, if after the rogue goes out of his way and risks his own life to save the cleric, then if the cleric is still acting like a douche, make HIM roll up a new character, or pay some sort of consequences. You could even coerce the players into forcing the cleric out of the party because they see that he's TOO over-zealous and his actions can't be trusted, especially after the rogue proved himself.