Party Conflict, advice welcome

tpmiller08
tpmiller08
edited July 2011 in General Discussion
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

  • twiggyleaf
    twiggyleaf
    Posts: 2,006
    Hi TPMiller

    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

  • tpmiller08
    tpmiller08
    Posts: 30
    I found them very useful! Thank you twiggy, your response is much appreciated
  • Poutine_Paladin
    Poutine_Paladin
    Posts: 285
    I agree. If anyone here should be changing their character, it should be the "bullying" cleric. Perhaps the other PC's now form a distrust for the cleric because of his seemingly biased distrust of the rogue. After all, what business is it of his that he was off somewhere in the middle of the night? For all he knows the "rogue" got a sudden urge to go to church or something....

    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.
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850
    _"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
  • FemmeLegion
    FemmeLegion
    Posts: 521
    Yeah, the only advice I can offer here is an echo of the suggestion to talk to the OTHER players and see how they feel about it. And because I'm me, I'll take it a step further and suggest you bring up the possibility that it's based on out-of-character conflict, and ask them "If I had to boot one of the PLAYERS from the game, leaving the character in as a NPC, which would you rather see gone?"

    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?"
  • JonathonVolkmer
    JonathonVolkmer
    Posts: 114
    I think I agree with what Poutine_Paladin and Arsheesh have stated. I would add that, the idea being to head this off in the future, character creation should be made a group activity in which everyone is given a chance to talk about their build before the game starts, and players can give each other constructive feedback about how they think their characters will work together. In a situation like your group's, where conflict has been ongoing through multiple campaigns and characters (from what it sounds like to me), maybe even tell people that they MUST, as part of joining the game, present their characters to the group for majority approval. That way, if anyone is going to hate anyone else's character, everyone knows right up front and you can deal with it before people get attached.

    Just some thoughts. Good luck!
  • DamienMaster
    DamienMaster
    Posts: 34 edited July 2011
    Like my last few fellows, I agree that it's hard to comment without knowing the individuals concerned, or the style of game you run...

    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.
    Post edited by DamienMaster on
  • Hardhead
    Hardhead
    Posts: 65
    I agree with everyone else... but also, it should be easy for the rogue to do his stuff behind the cleric's back. The cleric has to sleep some time, after all. If he's checking up on the rogue all throughout the night, he should take exhaustion penalties. The rogue really only has to wait until the cleric finally falls asleep one night, and then sneak out.
  • Baalshamon
    Baalshamon
    Posts: 585
    Every gaming group runs into this problem eventually. We have a couple of players that get caught up in "being in character" to the detriment of the group. They way we have dealt with this is simple but doesnt always work.

    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
  • Baalshamon
    Baalshamon
    Posts: 585
    now that all being said, sometime a good in player fight is awesome!!! It depends on the players. Will they take it personally out of game? Will they be cool if their favorite character gets his head chopped off? These are things that should be considered. Personally if I were the rogue I might slip some of that poison into the drink of said cleric and be done with the nosey bastard.

    "Star Trek Late Night":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/star-trek-late-night
  • igornappovich
    igornappovich
    Posts: 76
    at the risk of sounding uber obnoxious, I have run probably upwards of 500 gaming sessions over the years, with 7 or 8 different groups and this has never been a problem. At the first sign of player OOC douche baggery, the dice mysteriously start fudging against the Douchey player. The more douchey the actions, the more the rolls seem to go against that character... hmm. Coincidence?

    :) 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.
  • igornappovich
    igornappovich
    Posts: 76 edited July 2011
    I didnt mean to make that sound like my players' PCs have never engaged in combat, or stolen from each other, or completely ruined each others' reputations-- of course, thats half the fun when you play an evil party. But the player on player stuff needs to be squashed fast before it becomes acceptable behavior.
    Post edited by igornappovich on
  • AnthonyDluzak
    AnthonyDluzak
    Posts: 69
    Sounds to me like an excellent time for you to get creative and put those two in a position where trust can be built!

    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.
  • HurstGM
    HurstGM
    Posts: 205
    Ive had lots of games where this has happened for good and bad reasons. I usually talk to them about it then find a way in game to solve it. Like I did have a guy playing a mage where mages were responsible for breaking the world and were generally viewed with hate or at least distrust. I had the leader of the party get into a situation that forced him to trust the mage to get the party out of the trouble. He did and this lead to them realizing that not all mages were bad. By the end they were all for one and one for all. Barring that I have told a guy that he was being disruptive and needed to cut it out. During that conversation it came out that he had a personal problem with the other guy. I told him that was cool but he had to leave it at the door. In the end both situations were resovled. I have found as a GM if you can come up with an in came reason for fixing the party it seems to work the best.
  • tpmiller08
    tpmiller08
    Posts: 30
    I did eventually solve this problem in the next session. I gave a few general 'Everyone needs to remember this is a game with friends, in which we hope to have fun playing" messages. I then talked to a player that is respected in the group, and he helped settle the situation down further.

    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!
  • Fivegears
    Fivegears
    Posts: 42
    Coming in late to this discussion, but, I think you solved it the perfect way. I've only ever once had to outright kick a player out - and that was purely OUT of character stuff. I shan't horrify you with the details.
  • GamingMegaverse
    GamingMegaverse
    Posts: 2,998
    Glad it worked out tpmiller!!

    Just trying to help out.

  • Everdark
    Everdark
    Posts: 122 edited August 2011
    Make the cleric pay... WITH HIS LIFE!

    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.
    Post edited by Everdark on
Sign In or Register to comment.

March 2024
Wrath of the Highborn

Read the feature post on the blog
Return to Obsidian Portal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Discussions