Party of 3, a Warlock, Wizard, and Ranger. The two I'm focused on are the Warlock and Wizard (named Olsen and Sabal, personalities described below) who have been butting heads for a while now. I'm half expecting it to turn to PvP unless I do something, to stop it. OOC discussion between players is the best course of action but I'd also like an in-character reason as to why they get their act together and find ways to advance the plot without arguing every session. The classic idea of a common enemy wouldn't really apply here as they already have one and can't find a solution to deal with it.
In short, for the past few sessions there has been verbal conflict between Olsen and Sabal over the party's tactics and methods. Sabal likes to plunder and steal, while Olsen would rather not mess with people and make more enemies than he already has. In the most recent session, Sabal tried to pay Olsen to help him plunder for treasure at a burial site. Olsen refused, assuming that there could be people here that would kill any looters. Sabal cast the spell Suggestion and forced Olsen (without the player's consent) to help him, and Olsen quickly realized that he was magically coerced. Olsen's player privately told me that if Sabal used enchantment magic on Olsen again to remove his free will, Olsen might attack Sabal. This would obviously ruin the party and campaign.
Olsen: Lawful Neutral Changeling Warlock. Olsen's personal objective is to make good ties with the people in nearby towns so that he might be protected from enemies in his backstory or even raise a militia to fight back. Olsen is usually the last to join a fight and prefers persuading enemies to stand down with his charisma or magic.
Sabal: Lawful Evil Drow Wizard. Sabal is content with stealing, murder, and other crimes and will often commit crimes without the party's input, resulting in all 3 of them being thrown out of a town. Sabal would rather kill enemies and ask questions later, even when there is strong reasons to spare their enemies.
You have a problem player (Sabal's player). Tell him to knock it off; if he doesn't, you might not have a choice other than kicking him or ending the game. If he's willing to moderate his behavior, the easiest in-game solution is that Sabal's character dies or retires and he plays a new character, who is not permitted to be Evil.
So I think it's always worth talking to the players about their behavior, and maybe Sabal's player will understand and come around.
But they might not. So here's what I would suggest in that case. Olsen was worried the locals might worry about looters? Great, turns out Olsen was right. Maybe the burial site was sacred to a local and powerful Druid. Or maybe it was linked to an important noble family. Have someone pursue and capture the party because they looted the tomb. Have their either be some sort of judge with magical abilities, or at least a deep insight. As the party is interrogated over their decisions have the Judge realize either through a high insight, or possibly a magic ability that Olsen wasn't a willing participant in the looting, and now they are off the hook for what happened.
Maybe Olsen has to be talked into going back to rescue Sabal, but once they do so, now Sabal is in their debt, and maybe this will change their behavior.
Also I noticed you mentioned the character's alignment. Personally I don't like the alignment system, but if you are using it, I would point out that Sabal's actions don't seem very lawful. What sort of law does Sabal supposedly adhere to? It's a little harder to punish a wizard character for changing alignment, but a creative DM could do so. Maybe they are no longer paying attention to the laws of magic that rule the world (assuming that's the lawful part of their character). You could try something like this at the next long rest:
"As time has gone on, your belief in the laws of magic has begun to falter. The power magic gives you has the potential to let you change reality around you and bend it and others to your will. But if you can bend the will of others, whose to say your will is your own. You remember disturbing the ritual site, you remember subverting Olsen to do as you wanted and you begin to doubt yourself. If the magic can be used in such a way, what law truly governs the world? You're alignment has shifted to Neutral Evil, and you are only able to prepare one less 1st level spell the next day as your mind struggles with these issues."
That may or may not fit with your play style and who the character of Sabal actually is. But it's at least an example of another way to create consequences for the character and to point out what caused the consequence.
It's important to note as well, Sabal isn't Lawful Evil; he's Chaotic Stupid. This is one of the reasons I'm very wary of anyone who wants to play an "evil" character - I'm not saying they can't be done, just that I only trust certain people to do them well.
You allowed Sabal's player to use magic on Olsen another player, you already have PvP, if you haven't agreed to that before you started you have a bigger issue, if you did then have a plan for when Olsens Player decides he slits Sabels throat while he meditates or similar because its fair game now. If you don't want that you need to talk to both players and I agree with the comments above Sabals player is the issue.
Okay, I'll try to advocate for the player of Sabal just because everyone is against him and I think every situation has more than one solution.
The problem at hand has two sides: Separating character from player and different expectations from the game.
I don't think a character should be prohibited from casting spells - including harmful ones - on the other characters. Surely though, it makes sense that the other character will not be happy about it and at times might even want to retaliate. As characters, that makes sense. On the other hand, it only works if both players can separate themselves from their characters and understand that they will not always be in full control of their characters. What if they fought a mage and that mage cast a spell on one of the characters, forcing them to attack their previous comrades? Would you allow the player to say "But I control my character so I will not do this"? Of course, it might get annoying if it is done repeatedly so it must be handled with care, but saying such behaviour is prohibited entirely makes no sense. Just like the characters might quarrel and even attack each other with weapons at times, they can do so with spells. If you're limiting the player's interactions with the world by prohibiting this behaviour, you're not better than just controlling them entirely. "You can choose whether you go left or right at the end of the corridor. Left means you get a lot of money and right means you save the other PC. If you go left though, I'll kick you out of the game because that's not what I want you to do." This may sound very extreme for some of you but it is not that different. Also, maybe Oslen can use his magic to persuade Sabal to stop. While it creates a dangerous path where both characters just keep trying to control each other, it can make them understand how it feels when it happens. If not, just let them exhaust all their resources on controlling each-other and then throw a deadly encounter they will only barely escape alive, making them realise that they can't be focusing on these kinds of quarrels if they want to remain alive.
Having said all that, it's not fun if your character dies to the other character for no reason or is controlled by them for long periods of time/repeatedly. So where do we draw the line? The importance here is drawing no line and expecting the players to have good judgement. Assuming you're all smart enough to read and understand the rules of a complicated game such as D&D, you should be able to at least expect how another person would feel when you do something. Even if you're not the most socially capable person. When the above doesn't happen, you need to ask yourself, or the player, whether they're aware of the feelings they create in the other players and choose to ignore them or not. Whether or not they are aware of that, talking to them about that and reaching an agreement about how much you can both agree that would be fair is the way to move on. However, you can't just say "Never, don't do that!" because of what I've already mentioned earlier. You need to tolerate some of it and reach an agreement with them about just how much you can tolerate. You can't expect one side to change while you cannot change yourself at all. It's called middle ground (or in my language, equal valley, because both sides have to climb down from their mountains to reach that place).
ANYWAY, addressing your actual question:
I think that if a common enemy wouldn't work, personal desperation might do. You want to force each character to feel a moment where they understand the other one. For example, maybe Oslen is caught in a situation where he must pay a lot of money to someone to save a village within a short time but the only way to do so would be to plunder the burial site. He should understand that this is the only way he can obtain the money he needs in time and has to make a choice. Save the village or betray his beliefs? He may not be happy to plunder the site but he'll understand why one might want to do so. (Now, I understand that Sabal isn't doing this for a righteous cause but that's still a bit closer. As I said, middle ground.) That's just one idea.
On the contrary, Sabal might receive severe punishment for his actions that could have been avoided if he weren't "so evil". For example, get him a reason to attack a person who is, though Sabal doesn't know that, a level 20 Oath of Redemption Paladin. The Paladin won't fight and would prefer to talk it out instead, but we're assuming that Sabal will attack. After a few rounds where the Paladin only defends and tries to get Sabal to stop, he'll make one attack taking the wizard down immediately. Not killing him though. When he wakes up, his spellbook is locked away by the Paladin who says he'll only return it once he sees Sabal had changed his ways. You don't actually make Sabal change his ways though. You allow him to steal the book back or something, but at least now he understands he should be careful and think before attacking. After all, he should have high intelligence?
While these are just two options, I hope you get my ideas here. Force each character to understand the other, hopefully helping them overcome their differences. "You know what? I understand why you might steal. I don't like it but I'll try to tolerate it as long as it doesn't harm me." "You know what? You might be right. I will try to be cautious and won't attack every single thing that moves on sight. At least not straight away." These are the kinds of realisations you want them to reach.
Okay, I'll try to advocate for the player of Sabal just because everyone is against him and I think every situation has more than one solution.
The problem at hand has two sides: Separating character from player and different expectations from the game.
I don't think a character should be prohibited from casting spells - including harmful ones - on the other characters.
Using harmful spells on other PCs is PvP. There are certain types of games in which PvP is appropriate. However, in those games someone would have killed Sabal already for being more trouble than he's worth (or abandoned him when he made trouble, letting third parties kill him).
Okay, I'll try to advocate for the player of Sabal just because everyone is against him and I think every situation has more than one solution.
The problem at hand has two sides: Separating character from player and different expectations from the game.
I don't think a character should be prohibited from casting spells - including harmful ones - on the other characters.
Using harmful spells on other PCs is PvP. There are certain types of games in which PvP is appropriate. However, in those games someone would have killed Sabal already for being more trouble than he's worth (or abandoned him when he made trouble, letting third parties kill him).
Although I wouldn't call Suggestion a harmful spell, I understand what you're saying. Regardless, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sabal is abandoned, tries to survive on his own, barely manages to do so. Realises he needs the party to stay alive and comes back with a reason not to do "bad" things again. It's still a better course of action than saying: "You're playing bad, don't play this way."
Again, this is just a problem of setting expectations. If such things are totally forbidden, that should have been discussed at session zero. As a personal anecdote, in my first campaign, I played a Barbarian who managed to get himself a wolf pet. The rest of the party hated the wolf and kept attacking them, often hitting my character who was trying to defend him. Due to starting nearly every fight with less than half HP for that reason, I wasn't able to help them in one of our big fights which we could have won and we got TPK. Yes, it was quite annoying, but looking back also rather funny. Rather than a reason for me to hate them, it turned into our joke. That campaign was so short I don't even know the names of the other characters, but if I say "Wollie" - the name my character gave to the wolf - everyone will immediately know who I'm referring to. Even if Wollie's lifespan was about one and a half sessions.
Okay, I'll try to advocate for the player of Sabal just because everyone is against him and I think every situation has more than one solution.
The problem at hand has two sides: Separating character from player and different expectations from the game.
I don't think a character should be prohibited from casting spells - including harmful ones - on the other characters. Surely though, it makes sense that the other character will not be happy about it and at times might even want to retaliate. As characters, that makes sense. On the other hand, it only works if both players can separate themselves from their characters and understand that they will not always be in full control of their characters. What if they fought a mage and that mage cast a spell on one of the characters, forcing them to attack their previous comrades? Would you allow the player to say "But I control my character so I will not do this"? Of course, it might get annoying if it is done repeatedly so it must be handled with care, but saying such behaviour is prohibited entirely makes no sense. Just like the characters might quarrel and even attack each other with weapons at times, they can do so with spells. If you're limiting the player's interactions with the world by prohibiting this behaviour, you're not better than just controlling them entirely. "You can choose whether you go left or right at the end of the corridor. Left means you get a lot of money and right means you save the other PC. If you go left though, I'll kick you out of the game because that's not what I want you to do." This may sound very extreme for some of you but it is not that different. Also, maybe Oslen can use his magic to persuade Sabal to stop. While it creates a dangerous path where both characters just keep trying to control each other, it can make them understand how it feels when it happens. If not, just let them exhaust all their resources on controlling each-other and then throw a deadly encounter they will only barely escape alive, making them realise that they can't be focusing on these kinds of quarrels if they want to remain alive.
Having said all that, it's not fun if your character dies to the other character for no reason or is controlled by them for long periods of time/repeatedly. So where do we draw the line? The importance here is drawing no line and expecting the players to have good judgement. Assuming you're all smart enough to read and understand the rules of a complicated game such as D&D, you should be able to at least expect how another person would feel when you do something. Even if you're not the most socially capable person. When the above doesn't happen, you need to ask yourself, or the player, whether they're aware of the feelings they create in the other players and choose to ignore them or not. Whether or not they are aware of that, talking to them about that and reaching an agreement about how much you can both agree that would be fair is the way to move on. However, you can't just say "Never, don't do that!" because of what I've already mentioned earlier. You need to tolerate some of it and reach an agreement with them about just how much you can tolerate. You can't expect one side to change while you cannot change yourself at all. It's called middle ground (or in my language, equal valley, because both sides have to climb down from their mountains to reach that place).
...
All this whataboutery (what does a DM using a mind control spell have to do with PvP?) doesn't change the essentials of the situation - I don't know if Sabal's player has ever actually used the words "but that's what my character would do", but they are exhibiting all the behaviour that is usually followed by the Wangrod Defence.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with playing a Chaotic Stupid character - if everyone at the table has agreed to it - but it sounds very much like that hasn't happened. I don't know if a session zero happened to discuss any of this sort of stuff or not but the OP, as the DM, needs to decide what is and is not allowed in their game rather than trying to smooth over the cracks between people who are at this point basically playing different games.
Okay, I'll try to advocate for the player of Sabal just because everyone is against him and I think every situation has more than one solution.
The problem at hand has two sides: Separating character from player and different expectations from the game.
I don't think a character should be prohibited from casting spells - including harmful ones - on the other characters.
Using harmful spells on other PCs is PvP. There are certain types of games in which PvP is appropriate. However, in those games someone would have killed Sabal already for being more trouble than he's worth (or abandoned him when he made trouble, letting third parties kill him).
Although I wouldn't call Suggestion a harmful spell, I understand what you're saying. Regardless, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sabal is abandoned, tries to survive on his own, barely manages to do so. Realises he needs the party to stay alive and comes back with a reason not to do "bad" things again. It's still a better course of action than saying: "You're playing bad, don't play this way."
You're not saying "You're playing bad, don't play this way." You're saying "You're being a jerk, cut it out".
The standard social contract of gaming is that you don't kill or exclude PCs. In a game without that contact, the PC in question would suffer from consequences ranging from "Here's your bill for the trouble you caused the party" to "you're fired, go away" to "You're terminated, die already". However, a lot of players dislike games that lack that social contract.
All this whataboutery (what does a DM using a mind control spell have to do with PvP?) doesn't change the essentials of the situation - I don't know if Sabal's player has ever actually used the words "but that's what my character would do", but they are exhibiting all the behaviour that is usually followed by the Wangrod Defence.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with playing a Chaotic Stupid character - if everyone at the table has agreed to it - but it sounds very much like that hasn't happened. I don't know if a session zero happened to discuss any of this sort of stuff or not but the OP, as the DM, needs to decide what is and is not allowed in their game rather than trying to smooth over the cracks between people who are at this point basically playing different games.
Indeed, if it were discussed in session zero, there would have been no such problem. Since it wasn't, though, I don't think prohibiting it entirely is a good move. The best move would be to explain to the player that you don't like it, but then again, that other player could just as well say they don't like to be all goody-goody and don't like to be forced to play so.
Also, I think you're wrong that the DM should not at least try to "smooth over the cracks". If you look at OP's original question, he was asking about how to do exactly that, as I quoted below.
OOC discussion between players is the best course of action but I'd also like an in-character reason as to why they get their act together and find ways to advance the plot without arguing every session. The classic idea of a common enemy wouldn't really apply here as they already have one and can't find a solution to deal with it.
You're not saying "You're playing bad, don't play this way." You're saying "You're being a jerk, cut it out".
The standard social contract of gaming is that you don't kill or exclude PCs. In a game without that contact, the PC in question would suffer from consequences ranging from "Here's your bill for the trouble you caused the party" to "you're fired, go away" to "You're terminated, die already". However, a lot of players dislike games that lack that social contract.
I don't see how using Suggestion to make another player plunder a burial site equivalent to killing them. If it were a spell as [Tooltip Not Found], I'd understand the problem. That would really be depriving the player of freedom unless they want to receive a lot of damage, for 30 in-game days or possibly more. Suggestion, on the other hand, is only one action (or course of action). If all the interaction between players is limited to agreeing and helping each other, it's just a railroaded game where their choices don't really matter since they can't even choose what to do.
Taking my example from earlier, you could say that the player choosing "left" is a jerk because they didn't save their teammate. However, once you don't give them the choice, what's the point in even playing? Just write your story as a novel and publish it as one since you're not letting your characters choose what to do anyway. I don't have even one single friend with whom I didn't quarrel at least once. No, we never beat each other, but shit happens. Even so, you make peace eventually and move on. If you always find yourself agreeing with everyone around you and never arguing about things and even choose to do a thing differently than them, you're just a puppet.
Indeed, if it were discussed in session zero, there would have been no such problem. Since it wasn't, though, I don't think prohibiting it entirely is a good move. The best move would be to explain to the player that you don't like it, but then again, that other player could just as well say they don't like to be all goody-goody and don't like to be forced to play so.
Also, I think you're wrong that the DM should not at least try to "smooth over the cracks". If you look at OP's original question, he was asking about how to do exactly that, as I quoted below.
The point is that this should have been discussed in a session zero (I don't know whether it was or not), and it is difficult to the point of impossible for the DM to in character smooth over the differences without a significant change to the characters. Sabal and Olsen, as they are currently played, do not belong in the same party - saying that Sabal has a right to say "well I don't like to be all goody-goody" (literal translation: bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO?!?!?) does not solve OP's problem. The OP needs to decide what sort of game they are running, what is and is not acceptable, and communicate it clearly to all players. There are no In Character solutions to Out Of Character problems.
I don't know OP from Adam, so I don't know the full circumstances - but in one of my games, if it is a choice between keeping a player who is making an effort to roleplay a character or keeping someone being a Chaotic Stupid Murderhobo, that is no choice at all.
You're not saying "You're playing bad, don't play this way." You're saying "You're being a jerk, cut it out".
The standard social contract of gaming is that you don't kill or exclude PCs. In a game without that contact, the PC in question would suffer from consequences ranging from "Here's your bill for the trouble you caused the party" to "you're fired, go away" to "You're terminated, die already". However, a lot of players dislike games that lack that social contract.
I don't see how using Suggestion to make another player plunder a burial site equivalent to killing them. If it were a spell as [Tooltip Not Found], I'd understand the problem. That would really be depriving the player of freedom unless they want to receive a lot of damage, for 30 in-game days or possibly more. Suggestion, on the other hand, is only one action (or course of action). If all the interaction between players is limited to agreeing and helping each other, it's just a railroaded game where their choices don't really matter since they can't even choose what to do.
Taking my example from earlier, you could say that the player choosing "left" is a jerk because they didn't save their teammate. However, once you don't give them the choice, what's the point in even playing? Just write your story as a novel and publish it as one since you're not letting your characters choose what to do anyway. I don't have even one single friend with whom I didn't quarrel at least once. No, we never beat each other, but shit happens. Even so, you make peace eventually and move on. If you always find yourself agreeing with everyone around you and never arguing about things and even choose to do a thing differently than them, you're just a puppet.
Congratulations on making the largest and most elaborate strawman I've ever seen. The idea that a party should work together is not railroading, and in a social game following basic social rules around things like not being an absolute rocket does not make you a puppet. There is a vast gulf between in character conflict and the Wangrod Defence - a vast gulf which you seem to be trying to claim doesn't exist.
Maybe take a step back and think about why you are trying to defend this situation:
...Sabal likes to plunder and steal, while Olsen would rather not mess with people and make more enemies than he already has. In the most recent session, Sabal tried to pay Olsen to help him plunder for treasure at a burial site. Olsen refused, assuming that there could be people here that would kill any looters. Sabal cast the spell Suggestion and forced Olsen (without the player's consent) to help him, and Olsen quickly realized that he was magically coerced...
The point is that this should have been discussed in a session zero (I don't know whether it was or not), and it is difficult to the point of impossible for the DM to in character smooth over the differences without a significant change to the characters. Sabal and Olsen, as they are currently played, do not belong in the same party - saying that Sabal has a right to say "well I don't like to be all goody-goody" (literal translation: bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO?!?!?) does not solve OP's problem. The OP needs to decide what sort of game they are running, what is and is not acceptable, and communicate it clearly to all players. There are no In Character solutions to Out Of Character problems.
In my first post, I said that the main issue here was separating character from player. So yes, while there are no in-character solutions to out-of-character problems, I was trying to resolve the in-character aspect. Solving OOC can only be done by communicating, but then again, that's not what OP asked for. He knows that much.
saying that Sabal has a right to say "well I don't like to be all goody-goody" (literal translation: bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO?!?!?) does not solve OP's problem.
True. On the other hand, neither is prohibiting the player's behaviour. If you'll read again, you'll see that theft, murder and the rest of the stuff don't really bother OP (at least he doesn't write so). The problem at hand is the PvP aspect of his actions which, at least IMO, shouldn't be strictly prohibited either.
Congratulations on making the largest and most elaborate strawman I've ever seen. The idea that a party should work together is not railroading, and in a social game following basic social rules around things like not being an absolute rocket does not make you a puppet. There is a vast gulf between in character conflict and the Wangrod Defence - a vast gulf which you seem to be trying to claim doesn't exist.
Maybe take a step back and think about why you are trying to defend this situation:
...Sabal likes to plunder and steal, while Olsen would rather not mess with people and make more enemies than he already has. In the most recent session, Sabal tried to pay Olsen to help him plunder for treasure at a burial site. Olsen refused, assuming that there could be people here that would kill any looters. Sabal cast the spell Suggestion and forced Olsen (without the player's consent) to help him, and Olsen quickly realized that he was magically coerced...
The key point is without the player's consent.
The idea that they should be working together is not railroading but forcing them to do so is. Stealing, killing and plundering are all very common in D&D. I hope you're not saying that these should not be allowed. The only thing that raises a question in all of this is the use of Suggestion on the other player. Don't tell me that you've had a problem every time a player at your table stole somthing or killed an orc they happened to come across. Even if you had, the other player should not need your consent about it. Only the Suggestion is a problem here and it brings us back to the start. The players need to talk it out and reach a middle ground. However, once again, that was not OP's question. He was asking how to solve this matter in-character as well, rather than just solving it OOC and then forgetting about it entirely.
The idea that they should be working together is not railroading but forcing them to do so is.
It's not "forcing" someone to abide by the agreed-to social contract at the table. Any more than one of us not being rude and flamey on the forum because forum policy says not to do that are being "forced" to be polite. You agree to be polite by the very act of posting here (it's in the TOS) and if you fail to be polite, you are violating those TOS. This is not the same thing as being "forced" to be polite.
Stealing, killing and plundering are all very common in D&D. I hope you're not saying that these should not be allowed.
Those things are common when done to the NPCs, monsters, dragons, and the like. They are not common in most game groups against each other, PC on PC. Most game groups frown on this. As Pantagruel has said, if a group wants to eschew this common social contract that most tables use, by all means, let them. But it needs to go both ways even then... it cannot be that Wangrod gets to PVP the rest of the party but they can't PVP him back. Because that's not fair.
Only the Suggestion is a problem here and it brings us back to the start. The players need to talk it out and reach a middle ground. However, once again, that was not OP's question. He was asking how to solve this matter in-character as well, rather than just solving it OOC and then forgetting about it entirely.
No... the players do not have to reach a middle ground. I think the table needs to take a step back and have a conversation about the acceptability of PVP - either it's allowed, in which case it is open freaking season and Sabal can expect what comes next, or it is not allowed and Sabal's player needs to cut it the eff out. There is no middle ground on this. The table either allows PVP, or they do not.
The only exception is if Sabal's player and Olen's player talk together and decide to do some sort of mini-plot in which one character PVPs the other. But even then it better get at least DM approval in addition to player-player agreement. And that clearly did not happen here.
The table needs to have another session 0, right now, before the next regular session (or at the start of it) and talk about PVP and how much if any they will allow. And Sabal's player needs to understand that if they agree to allow PVP, and he does it again, as Pantagruel said, anything the other players have their PCs do to him in revenge is going to be allowed at the table. Including taking his money as penalty, abandoning him in the middle of the dungeon, or killing him (assuming those things are in character for the other PCs, of course).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Bottom line, Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Evil, or really, Chaotic Evil chars are brutal in a long-term game, unless the party plans on being hunted by every law enforcement group in the DM's world.
I have a Lawful Evil char being played in my game, but the guy might as well be Lawful Neutral. He plays a very subdued, very intelligent version of an LE char, who has done nothing to inflict pain or suffering on anyone, and respects all law enforcement, so far.
But the players who are capable of such self-discipline in-game are few and far between. As soon as a player says he is Chaotic Neutral, or any flavour of Evil, alarm bells better go off in a DM's head, and make it explicitly clear to the player, and the group, that certain activities WILL bring down the wrath of NPC's, who WILL be more powerful than the players. It is simply better to forbid such activity at their table. If a player persists, then yeah, you have a real problem player.
The point is that this should have been discussed in a session zero (I don't know whether it was or not), and it is difficult to the point of impossible for the DM to in character smooth over the differences without a significant change to the characters. Sabal and Olsen, as they are currently played, do not belong in the same party - saying that Sabal has a right to say "well I don't like to be all goody-goody" (literal translation: bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO?!?!?) does not solve OP's problem. The OP needs to decide what sort of game they are running, what is and is not acceptable, and communicate it clearly to all players. There are no In Character solutions to Out Of Character problems.
In my first post, I said that the main issue here was separating character from player. So yes, while there are no in-character solutions to out-of-character problems, I was trying to resolve the in-character aspect. Solving OOC can only be done by communicating, but then again, that's not what OP asked for. He knows that much.
saying that Sabal has a right to say "well I don't like to be all goody-goody" (literal translation: bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO?!?!?) does not solve OP's problem.
True. On the other hand, neither is prohibiting the player's behaviour. If you'll read again, you'll see that theft, murder and the rest of the stuff don't really bother OP (at least he doesn't write so). The problem at hand is the PvP aspect of his actions which, at least IMO, shouldn't be strictly prohibited either.
Congratulations on making the largest and most elaborate strawman I've ever seen. The idea that a party should work together is not railroading, and in a social game following basic social rules around things like not being an absolute rocket does not make you a puppet. There is a vast gulf between in character conflict and the Wangrod Defence - a vast gulf which you seem to be trying to claim doesn't exist.
Maybe take a step back and think about why you are trying to defend this situation:
...Sabal likes to plunder and steal, while Olsen would rather not mess with people and make more enemies than he already has. In the most recent session, Sabal tried to pay Olsen to help him plunder for treasure at a burial site. Olsen refused, assuming that there could be people here that would kill any looters. Sabal cast the spell Suggestion and forced Olsen (without the player's consent) to help him, and Olsen quickly realized that he was magically coerced...
The key point is without the player's consent.
The idea that they should be working together is not railroading but forcing them to do so is. Stealing, killing and plundering are all very common in D&D. I hope you're not saying that these should not be allowed. The only thing that raises a question in all of this is the use of Suggestion on the other player. Don't tell me that you've had a problem every time a player at your table stole somthing or killed an orc they happened to come across. Even if you had, the other player should not need your consent about it. Only the Suggestion is a problem here and it brings us back to the start. The players need to talk it out and reach a middle ground. However, once again, that was not OP's question. He was asking how to solve this matter in-character as well, rather than just solving it OOC and then forgetting about it entirely.
Again, you are cherry picking and ignoring what I and others have said on this thread. The whole point is that this isn't an in character conflict - whether you want to believe that or not. The core issue is that these two players want to play very different games, and one of the players is prepared to break a social compact in order to get his own way. If OP doesn't want PvP in their game, Sabal (or anyone else) casting Suggestion on PCs without the player's consent should be banned as well. Before you start with some ridiculous whataboutery regarding the DM's use of mind control spells - that is a separate issue as it isn't PvP. It's still a potential problem, and the use of mind control spells full stop should be agreed to during a session zero, as mind control can be something that can be upsetting for some people.
Quite frankly, your, or mine, or anyone elses opinion of PvP in a game does not matter. The OP has stated that they don't want PvP in their game, and everyone except you on this thread has tried to point out that particular horse has bolted - and the solution to the problem is to have an out of character discussion to either set, or reinforce, the table rules the OP wishes to run with.
You just can't help yourself with these strawman arguments, can you? At no point has anyone suggested that players should not be able to break in game laws. In fact, I've run games with full evil parties that were great fun because there were established table rules that everyone agreed to beforehand. Having table rules that say "No PvP" or "But that's what my character would do is not a valid defence for being a wangrod" isn't railroading. A DM asking that the party sticks together, or that players roll new characters who would stick together isn't railroading. These are reasonable table rules that allow the DM to actually run the game they want to run. I'm not trying to claim that every game of D&D must have these rules - just that I've got better things to do with my time than babysit a bunch of edgelords who start crying if I don't allow them to do whatever lolrandom thing they think of next.
The issue (and I'm glad that you've identified the issue as the use of Suggestion, because you can't wriggle out of it now) is that one player at this table said "I want to do this to your character", the other player said "No", and the first player did it anyway. There is no compromise to be made here, the fact that one player thinks it is acceptable to breach the consent of another player is the problem. Unless you don't agree?
The idea that they should be working together is not railroading but forcing them to do so is.
It's not "forcing" someone to abide by the agreed-to social contract at the table. Any more than one of us not being rude and flamey on the forum because forum policy says not to do that are being "forced" to be polite. You agree to be polite by the very act of posting here (it's in the TOS) and if you fail to be polite, you are violating those TOS. This is not the same thing as being "forced" to be polite.
Stealing, killing and plundering are all very common in D&D. I hope you're not saying that these should not be allowed.
Those things are common when done to the NPCs, monsters, dragons, and the like. They are not common in most game groups against each other, PC on PC. Most game groups frown on this. As Pantagruel has said, if a group wants to eschew this common social contract that most tables use, by all means, let them. But it needs to go both ways even then... it cannot be that Wangrod gets to PVP the rest of the party but they can't PVP him back. Because that's not fair.
Only the Suggestion is a problem here and it brings us back to the start. The players need to talk it out and reach a middle ground. However, once again, that was not OP's question. He was asking how to solve this matter in-character as well, rather than just solving it OOC and then forgetting about it entirely.
No... the players do not have to reach a middle ground. I think the table needs to take a step back and have a conversation about the acceptability of PVP - either it's allowed, in which case it is open freaking season and Sabal can expect what comes next, or it is not allowed and Sabal's player needs to cut it the eff out. There is no middle ground on this. The table either allows PVP, or they do not.
The only exception is if Sabal's player and Olen's player talk together and decide to do some sort of mini-plot in which one character PVPs the other. But even then it better get at least DM approval in addition to player-player agreement. And that clearly did not happen here.
The table needs to have another session 0, right now, before the next regular session (or at the start of it) and talk about PVP and how much if any they will allow. And Sabal's player needs to understand that if they agree to allow PVP, and he does it again, as Pantagruel said, anything the other players have their PCs do to him in revenge is going to be allowed at the table. Including taking his money as penalty, abandoning him in the middle of the dungeon, or killing him (assuming those things are in character for the other PCs, of course).
(Numbers refer to each time you quoted me, instead of quoting back because it's uncomfortable when using mobile version.)
1. You're right, IF these expectations are set already. As I've said before, this does not seem to be the case. If the TOS did not include that, you can't expect everyone to be polite even if you really want them to.
2. These actions that I've written down are from the description of Sabal's actions against NPCs from the original post. None of those are done against the other PCs, as far as I can tell. The only thing done against a PC here was the casting of Suggestion. None the less, I already did say that they can both attack each other. Never did I say the rest of the party should not respond to Sabal's actions.
3. So... in your mind it's either "plot armour" (of sorts) or "hunger games"? Is there no tolerance for minor actions? Does my Paladin smite the Rogue with his highest-level spell slot because he stole 10 SP? However, taking the money back or abandoning him makes sense. I've even suggested that as an in-game fix in one of my previous posts to make the character realise why he also needs to respect some of the other party members' wishes.
Of course the table shouls sit and discuss everything and not even once did I oppose this. In fact, I keep writing this part every time and it's getting annoying. I'm just saying that in any kind of relationship, one can not expect the otger to change if they are unwilling to change themselves. Yes, it is also true in a player-to-player relationship. If you expect everyone to act according to your will without at least giving serious thought to their wishes, and explain why you won't accept them and find a better solution that fits both of you in case you choose not to accept them; then you are the problem player.
Party of 3, a Warlock, Wizard, and Ranger. The two I'm focused on are the Warlock and Wizard (named Olsen and Sabal, personalities described below) who have been butting heads for a while now. I'm half expecting it to turn to PvP unless I do something, to stop it. OOC discussion between players is the best course of action but I'd also like an in-character reason as to why they get their act together and find ways to advance the plot without arguing every session. The classic idea of a common enemy wouldn't really apply here as they already have one and can't find a solution to deal with it.
In short, for the past few sessions there has been verbal conflict between Olsen and Sabal over the party's tactics and methods. Sabal likes to plunder and steal, while Olsen would rather not mess with people and make more enemies than he already has. In the most recent session, Sabal tried to pay Olsen to help him plunder for treasure at a burial site. Olsen refused, assuming that there could be people here that would kill any looters. Sabal cast the spell Suggestion and forced Olsen (without the player's consent) to help him, and Olsen quickly realized that he was magically coerced. Olsen's player privately told me that if Sabal used enchantment magic on Olsen again to remove his free will, Olsen might attack Sabal. This would obviously ruin the party and campaign.
Olsen: Lawful Neutral Changeling Warlock. Olsen's personal objective is to make good ties with the people in nearby towns so that he might be protected from enemies in his backstory or even raise a militia to fight back. Olsen is usually the last to join a fight and prefers persuading enemies to stand down with his charisma or magic.
Sabal: Lawful Evil Drow Wizard. Sabal is content with stealing, murder, and other crimes and will often commit crimes without the party's input, resulting in all 3 of them being thrown out of a town. Sabal would rather kill enemies and ask questions later, even when there is strong reasons to spare their enemies.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!
You have a problem player (Sabal's player). Tell him to knock it off; if he doesn't, you might not have a choice other than kicking him or ending the game. If he's willing to moderate his behavior, the easiest in-game solution is that Sabal's character dies or retires and he plays a new character, who is not permitted to be Evil.
Agree 100% with Pantagruel666.
So I think it's always worth talking to the players about their behavior, and maybe Sabal's player will understand and come around.
But they might not. So here's what I would suggest in that case. Olsen was worried the locals might worry about looters? Great, turns out Olsen was right. Maybe the burial site was sacred to a local and powerful Druid. Or maybe it was linked to an important noble family. Have someone pursue and capture the party because they looted the tomb. Have their either be some sort of judge with magical abilities, or at least a deep insight. As the party is interrogated over their decisions have the Judge realize either through a high insight, or possibly a magic ability that Olsen wasn't a willing participant in the looting, and now they are off the hook for what happened.
Maybe Olsen has to be talked into going back to rescue Sabal, but once they do so, now Sabal is in their debt, and maybe this will change their behavior.
Also I noticed you mentioned the character's alignment. Personally I don't like the alignment system, but if you are using it, I would point out that Sabal's actions don't seem very lawful. What sort of law does Sabal supposedly adhere to? It's a little harder to punish a wizard character for changing alignment, but a creative DM could do so. Maybe they are no longer paying attention to the laws of magic that rule the world (assuming that's the lawful part of their character). You could try something like this at the next long rest:
"As time has gone on, your belief in the laws of magic has begun to falter. The power magic gives you has the potential to let you change reality around you and bend it and others to your will. But if you can bend the will of others, whose to say your will is your own. You remember disturbing the ritual site, you remember subverting Olsen to do as you wanted and you begin to doubt yourself. If the magic can be used in such a way, what law truly governs the world? You're alignment has shifted to Neutral Evil, and you are only able to prepare one less 1st level spell the next day as your mind struggles with these issues."
That may or may not fit with your play style and who the character of Sabal actually is. But it's at least an example of another way to create consequences for the character and to point out what caused the consequence.
I am with Pantagruel on this one.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Based on your description, Sabal is certainly not Lawful Evil.
Again, 100% agree with Pantagruel.
It's important to note as well, Sabal isn't Lawful Evil; he's Chaotic Stupid. This is one of the reasons I'm very wary of anyone who wants to play an "evil" character - I'm not saying they can't be done, just that I only trust certain people to do them well.
You allowed Sabal's player to use magic on Olsen another player, you already have PvP, if you haven't agreed to that before you started you have a bigger issue, if you did then have a plan for when Olsens Player decides he slits Sabels throat while he meditates or similar because its fair game now. If you don't want that you need to talk to both players and I agree with the comments above Sabals player is the issue.
Okay, I'll try to advocate for the player of Sabal just because everyone is against him and I think every situation has more than one solution.
The problem at hand has two sides: Separating character from player and different expectations from the game.
I don't think a character should be prohibited from casting spells - including harmful ones - on the other characters. Surely though, it makes sense that the other character will not be happy about it and at times might even want to retaliate. As characters, that makes sense. On the other hand, it only works if both players can separate themselves from their characters and understand that they will not always be in full control of their characters. What if they fought a mage and that mage cast a spell on one of the characters, forcing them to attack their previous comrades? Would you allow the player to say "But I control my character so I will not do this"? Of course, it might get annoying if it is done repeatedly so it must be handled with care, but saying such behaviour is prohibited entirely makes no sense. Just like the characters might quarrel and even attack each other with weapons at times, they can do so with spells. If you're limiting the player's interactions with the world by prohibiting this behaviour, you're not better than just controlling them entirely. "You can choose whether you go left or right at the end of the corridor. Left means you get a lot of money and right means you save the other PC. If you go left though, I'll kick you out of the game because that's not what I want you to do." This may sound very extreme for some of you but it is not that different.
Also, maybe Oslen can use his magic to persuade Sabal to stop. While it creates a dangerous path where both characters just keep trying to control each other, it can make them understand how it feels when it happens. If not, just let them exhaust all their resources on controlling each-other and then throw a deadly encounter they will only barely escape alive, making them realise that they can't be focusing on these kinds of quarrels if they want to remain alive.
Having said all that, it's not fun if your character dies to the other character for no reason or is controlled by them for long periods of time/repeatedly. So where do we draw the line? The importance here is drawing no line and expecting the players to have good judgement. Assuming you're all smart enough to read and understand the rules of a complicated game such as D&D, you should be able to at least expect how another person would feel when you do something. Even if you're not the most socially capable person.
When the above doesn't happen, you need to ask yourself, or the player, whether they're aware of the feelings they create in the other players and choose to ignore them or not. Whether or not they are aware of that, talking to them about that and reaching an agreement about how much you can both agree that would be fair is the way to move on. However, you can't just say "Never, don't do that!" because of what I've already mentioned earlier. You need to tolerate some of it and reach an agreement with them about just how much you can tolerate. You can't expect one side to change while you cannot change yourself at all. It's called middle ground (or in my language, equal valley, because both sides have to climb down from their mountains to reach that place).
ANYWAY, addressing your actual question:
I think that if a common enemy wouldn't work, personal desperation might do. You want to force each character to feel a moment where they understand the other one.
For example, maybe Oslen is caught in a situation where he must pay a lot of money to someone to save a village within a short time but the only way to do so would be to plunder the burial site. He should understand that this is the only way he can obtain the money he needs in time and has to make a choice. Save the village or betray his beliefs? He may not be happy to plunder the site but he'll understand why one might want to do so. (Now, I understand that Sabal isn't doing this for a righteous cause but that's still a bit closer. As I said, middle ground.) That's just one idea.
On the contrary, Sabal might receive severe punishment for his actions that could have been avoided if he weren't "so evil". For example, get him a reason to attack a person who is, though Sabal doesn't know that, a level 20 Oath of Redemption Paladin. The Paladin won't fight and would prefer to talk it out instead, but we're assuming that Sabal will attack. After a few rounds where the Paladin only defends and tries to get Sabal to stop, he'll make one attack taking the wizard down immediately. Not killing him though. When he wakes up, his spellbook is locked away by the Paladin who says he'll only return it once he sees Sabal had changed his ways.
You don't actually make Sabal change his ways though. You allow him to steal the book back or something, but at least now he understands he should be careful and think before attacking. After all, he should have high intelligence?
While these are just two options, I hope you get my ideas here. Force each character to understand the other, hopefully helping them overcome their differences.
"You know what? I understand why you might steal. I don't like it but I'll try to tolerate it as long as it doesn't harm me." "You know what? You might be right. I will try to be cautious and won't attack every single thing that moves on sight. At least not straight away."
These are the kinds of realisations you want them to reach.
*Multiple people are typing...*
Varielky
Using harmful spells on other PCs is PvP. There are certain types of games in which PvP is appropriate. However, in those games someone would have killed Sabal already for being more trouble than he's worth (or abandoned him when he made trouble, letting third parties kill him).
Although I wouldn't call Suggestion a harmful spell, I understand what you're saying. Regardless, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sabal is abandoned, tries to survive on his own, barely manages to do so. Realises he needs the party to stay alive and comes back with a reason not to do "bad" things again. It's still a better course of action than saying: "You're playing bad, don't play this way."
Again, this is just a problem of setting expectations. If such things are totally forbidden, that should have been discussed at session zero. As a personal anecdote, in my first campaign, I played a Barbarian who managed to get himself a wolf pet. The rest of the party hated the wolf and kept attacking them, often hitting my character who was trying to defend him. Due to starting nearly every fight with less than half HP for that reason, I wasn't able to help them in one of our big fights which we could have won and we got TPK. Yes, it was quite annoying, but looking back also rather funny. Rather than a reason for me to hate them, it turned into our joke. That campaign was so short I don't even know the names of the other characters, but if I say "Wollie" - the name my character gave to the wolf - everyone will immediately know who I'm referring to. Even if Wollie's lifespan was about one and a half sessions.
Varielky
All this whataboutery (what does a DM using a mind control spell have to do with PvP?) doesn't change the essentials of the situation - I don't know if Sabal's player has ever actually used the words "but that's what my character would do", but they are exhibiting all the behaviour that is usually followed by the Wangrod Defence.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with playing a Chaotic Stupid character - if everyone at the table has agreed to it - but it sounds very much like that hasn't happened. I don't know if a session zero happened to discuss any of this sort of stuff or not but the OP, as the DM, needs to decide what is and is not allowed in their game rather than trying to smooth over the cracks between people who are at this point basically playing different games.
You're not saying "You're playing bad, don't play this way." You're saying "You're being a jerk, cut it out".
The standard social contract of gaming is that you don't kill or exclude PCs. In a game without that contact, the PC in question would suffer from consequences ranging from "Here's your bill for the trouble you caused the party" to "you're fired, go away" to "You're terminated, die already". However, a lot of players dislike games that lack that social contract.
Indeed, if it were discussed in session zero, there would have been no such problem. Since it wasn't, though, I don't think prohibiting it entirely is a good move. The best move would be to explain to the player that you don't like it, but then again, that other player could just as well say they don't like to be all goody-goody and don't like to be forced to play so.
Also, I think you're wrong that the DM should not at least try to "smooth over the cracks". If you look at OP's original question, he was asking about how to do exactly that, as I quoted below.
I don't see how using Suggestion to make another player plunder a burial site equivalent to killing them. If it were a spell as [Tooltip Not Found], I'd understand the problem. That would really be depriving the player of freedom unless they want to receive a lot of damage, for 30 in-game days or possibly more. Suggestion, on the other hand, is only one action (or course of action). If all the interaction between players is limited to agreeing and helping each other, it's just a railroaded game where their choices don't really matter since they can't even choose what to do.
Taking my example from earlier, you could say that the player choosing "left" is a jerk because they didn't save their teammate. However, once you don't give them the choice, what's the point in even playing? Just write your story as a novel and publish it as one since you're not letting your characters choose what to do anyway. I don't have even one single friend with whom I didn't quarrel at least once. No, we never beat each other, but shit happens. Even so, you make peace eventually and move on. If you always find yourself agreeing with everyone around you and never arguing about things and even choose to do a thing differently than them, you're just a puppet.
Varielky
The point is that this should have been discussed in a session zero (I don't know whether it was or not), and it is difficult to the point of impossible for the DM to in character smooth over the differences without a significant change to the characters. Sabal and Olsen, as they are currently played, do not belong in the same party - saying that Sabal has a right to say "well I don't like to be all goody-goody" (literal translation: bUt ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO?!?!?) does not solve OP's problem. The OP needs to decide what sort of game they are running, what is and is not acceptable, and communicate it clearly to all players. There are no In Character solutions to Out Of Character problems.
I don't know OP from Adam, so I don't know the full circumstances - but in one of my games, if it is a choice between keeping a player who is making an effort to roleplay a character or keeping someone being a Chaotic Stupid Murderhobo, that is no choice at all.
Congratulations on making the largest and most elaborate strawman I've ever seen. The idea that a party should work together is not railroading, and in a social game following basic social rules around things like not being an absolute rocket does not make you a puppet. There is a vast gulf between in character conflict and the Wangrod Defence - a vast gulf which you seem to be trying to claim doesn't exist.
Maybe take a step back and think about why you are trying to defend this situation:
The key point is without the player's consent.
In my first post, I said that the main issue here was separating character from player. So yes, while there are no in-character solutions to out-of-character problems, I was trying to resolve the in-character aspect. Solving OOC can only be done by communicating, but then again, that's not what OP asked for. He knows that much.
True. On the other hand, neither is prohibiting the player's behaviour. If you'll read again, you'll see that theft, murder and the rest of the stuff don't really bother OP (at least he doesn't write so). The problem at hand is the PvP aspect of his actions which, at least IMO, shouldn't be strictly prohibited either.
The idea that they should be working together is not railroading but forcing them to do so is. Stealing, killing and plundering are all very common in D&D. I hope you're not saying that these should not be allowed. The only thing that raises a question in all of this is the use of Suggestion on the other player. Don't tell me that you've had a problem every time a player at your table stole somthing or killed an orc they happened to come across. Even if you had, the other player should not need your consent about it. Only the Suggestion is a problem here and it brings us back to the start. The players need to talk it out and reach a middle ground. However, once again, that was not OP's question. He was asking how to solve this matter in-character as well, rather than just solving it OOC and then forgetting about it entirely.
Varielky
It's not "forcing" someone to abide by the agreed-to social contract at the table. Any more than one of us not being rude and flamey on the forum because forum policy says not to do that are being "forced" to be polite. You agree to be polite by the very act of posting here (it's in the TOS) and if you fail to be polite, you are violating those TOS. This is not the same thing as being "forced" to be polite.
Those things are common when done to the NPCs, monsters, dragons, and the like. They are not common in most game groups against each other, PC on PC. Most game groups frown on this. As Pantagruel has said, if a group wants to eschew this common social contract that most tables use, by all means, let them. But it needs to go both ways even then... it cannot be that Wangrod gets to PVP the rest of the party but they can't PVP him back. Because that's not fair.
No... the players do not have to reach a middle ground. I think the table needs to take a step back and have a conversation about the acceptability of PVP - either it's allowed, in which case it is open freaking season and Sabal can expect what comes next, or it is not allowed and Sabal's player needs to cut it the eff out. There is no middle ground on this. The table either allows PVP, or they do not.
The only exception is if Sabal's player and Olen's player talk together and decide to do some sort of mini-plot in which one character PVPs the other. But even then it better get at least DM approval in addition to player-player agreement. And that clearly did not happen here.
The table needs to have another session 0, right now, before the next regular session (or at the start of it) and talk about PVP and how much if any they will allow. And Sabal's player needs to understand that if they agree to allow PVP, and he does it again, as Pantagruel said, anything the other players have their PCs do to him in revenge is going to be allowed at the table. Including taking his money as penalty, abandoning him in the middle of the dungeon, or killing him (assuming those things are in character for the other PCs, of course).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Bottom line, Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Evil, or really, Chaotic Evil chars are brutal in a long-term game, unless the party plans on being hunted by every law enforcement group in the DM's world.
I have a Lawful Evil char being played in my game, but the guy might as well be Lawful Neutral. He plays a very subdued, very intelligent version of an LE char, who has done nothing to inflict pain or suffering on anyone, and respects all law enforcement, so far.
But the players who are capable of such self-discipline in-game are few and far between. As soon as a player says he is Chaotic Neutral, or any flavour of Evil, alarm bells better go off in a DM's head, and make it explicitly clear to the player, and the group, that certain activities WILL bring down the wrath of NPC's, who WILL be more powerful than the players. It is simply better to forbid such activity at their table. If a player persists, then yeah, you have a real problem player.
Again, you are cherry picking and ignoring what I and others have said on this thread. The whole point is that this isn't an in character conflict - whether you want to believe that or not. The core issue is that these two players want to play very different games, and one of the players is prepared to break a social compact in order to get his own way. If OP doesn't want PvP in their game, Sabal (or anyone else) casting Suggestion on PCs without the player's consent should be banned as well. Before you start with some ridiculous whataboutery regarding the DM's use of mind control spells - that is a separate issue as it isn't PvP. It's still a potential problem, and the use of mind control spells full stop should be agreed to during a session zero, as mind control can be something that can be upsetting for some people.
Quite frankly, your, or mine, or anyone elses opinion of PvP in a game does not matter. The OP has stated that they don't want PvP in their game, and everyone except you on this thread has tried to point out that particular horse has bolted - and the solution to the problem is to have an out of character discussion to either set, or reinforce, the table rules the OP wishes to run with.
You just can't help yourself with these strawman arguments, can you? At no point has anyone suggested that players should not be able to break in game laws. In fact, I've run games with full evil parties that were great fun because there were established table rules that everyone agreed to beforehand. Having table rules that say "No PvP" or "But that's what my character would do is not a valid defence for being a wangrod" isn't railroading. A DM asking that the party sticks together, or that players roll new characters who would stick together isn't railroading. These are reasonable table rules that allow the DM to actually run the game they want to run. I'm not trying to claim that every game of D&D must have these rules - just that I've got better things to do with my time than babysit a bunch of edgelords who start crying if I don't allow them to do whatever lolrandom thing they think of next.
The issue (and I'm glad that you've identified the issue as the use of Suggestion, because you can't wriggle out of it now) is that one player at this table said "I want to do this to your character", the other player said "No", and the first player did it anyway. There is no compromise to be made here, the fact that one player thinks it is acceptable to breach the consent of another player is the problem. Unless you don't agree?
(Numbers refer to each time you quoted me, instead of quoting back because it's uncomfortable when using mobile version.)
1. You're right, IF these expectations are set already. As I've said before, this does not seem to be the case. If the TOS did not include that, you can't expect everyone to be polite even if you really want them to.
2. These actions that I've written down are from the description of Sabal's actions against NPCs from the original post. None of those are done against the other PCs, as far as I can tell. The only thing done against a PC here was the casting of Suggestion. None the less, I already did say that they can both attack each other. Never did I say the rest of the party should not respond to Sabal's actions.
3. So... in your mind it's either "plot armour" (of sorts) or "hunger games"? Is there no tolerance for minor actions? Does my Paladin smite the Rogue with his highest-level spell slot because he stole 10 SP? However, taking the money back or abandoning him makes sense. I've even suggested that as an in-game fix in one of my previous posts to make the character realise why he also needs to respect some of the other party members' wishes.
Of course the table shouls sit and discuss everything and not even once did I oppose this. In fact, I keep writing this part every time and it's getting annoying. I'm just saying that in any kind of relationship, one can not expect the otger to change if they are unwilling to change themselves. Yes, it is also true in a player-to-player relationship. If you expect everyone to act according to your will without at least giving serious thought to their wishes, and explain why you won't accept them and find a better solution that fits both of you in case you choose not to accept them; then you are the problem player.
Varielky