One of my players (a sorcerer/warlock) was knocked out by a giant spider and got paralyzed. The paladin was the only one in the party who could cure the paralysis early, but he demanded money from the other players to cure him. So after reviving him, the rest of my players decided to try killing him, so he ran away. Now I'm sort of in a conundrum of what I should do... Anybody got any ideas?
(If it's needed, my party consists of the aforementioned sorcerer/warlock and paladin, another sorcerer, a wizard, and 2 fighters.)
Flat out, I run an open world campaign, and ground rules always include no PVP.
Sorry that's not much help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
When this kind of thing happens you really need to ask why this party travels together. If they have a good reason they can come together around that if not they need to come up with one. That might require one or two new characters from the players. There's also the meta question of if the players are willing to commit to the conceit of having a party and if they can get along.
So I would basically say to them. For the game to function you need to be a party, we need to come up with something to make that work. Either you find a way to reconcile or get new characters. If as a people they can't get along you might need to change who you play with. Then you run with what ever they decide, maybe they replace the fleeing member, maybe the fleeing member finds a new party, maybe the party dies due to the their social failure and a new party finds their bodies or maybe they all catch up and make amends.
One of my players (a sorcerer/warlock) was knocked out by a giant spider and got paralyzed. The paladin was the only one in the party who could cure the paralysis early, but he demanded money from the other players to cure him. So after reviving him, the rest of my players decided to try killing him, so he ran away. Now I'm sort of in a conundrum of what I should do... Anybody got any ideas?
(If it's needed, my party consists of the aforementioned sorcerer/warlock and paladin, another sorcerer, a wizard, and 2 fighters.)
Sit your players down - your players, not their characters - and ask them if they'd like to play a fun fantasy game of adventure together. If they say "yes", tell them they need to cooperate and act like friends, because it's impossible to run a game of D&D for people who pull this sort of shit. Because it is. If they can't avoid actively extorting and murdering each other, they can't play D&D.
Simple as that, really. They shape up or they find a new hobby.
One of my players (a sorcerer/warlock) was knocked out by a giant spider and got paralyzed. The paladin was the only one in the party who could cure the paralysis early, but he demanded money from the other players to cure him. So after reviving him, the rest of my players decided to try killing him, so he ran away. Now I'm sort of in a conundrum of what I should do... Anybody got any ideas?
This is really a session zero question: are intraparty conflicts allowed?
Most D&D games don't allow intraparty conflicts beyond maybe arguments about what to do, because intraparty conflicts are prone to causing out-of-game conflicts, but you do see the other type of campaign on occasion. The general solution is an out of game discussion about what kind of campaign the players want.
If intraparty conflicts are disallowed, the paladin's actions were unacceptable.
If intraparty conflicts are permitted, there's nothing wrong with the rest of the party deciding to gank the paladin.
I suspect most of your players don't want intraparty conflicts and chose to enforce this by killing the rulebreaker.
Seriously though, this is not that kind of game and as the DM, it is your job to tell them to pull their heads in. If they push back saying 'this is what my character would do', that's fine, but that character is not a good fit for this kind of game and they should make a new one if changing behaviors for that PC messes with their head canon. This game only works as a cooperative game. Someone always has no fun when it isn't.
One of my players (a sorcerer/warlock) was knocked out by a giant spider and got paralyzed. The paladin was the only one in the party who could cure the paralysis early, but he demanded money from the other players to cure him. So after reviving him, the rest of my players decided to try killing him, so he ran away. Now I'm sort of in a conundrum of what I should do... Anybody got any ideas?
(If it's needed, my party consists of the aforementioned sorcerer/warlock and paladin, another sorcerer, a wizard, and 2 fighters.)
So what is the story with the player who is the paladin? That is my question. And was this the first time the character tried some shenanigans like this? I am trying not to jump to conclusions here and this why I am asking. From the limited info presented it sounds like a player maybe causing a rift in the game and I am not sure what his motivation for doing so is.
Frustration out playing a role is understandable especially if the player feels like the party is forcing their actions and decisions. I don't think that is the case here though. It sounds like the player was acting out; so the question is if this was a one off or if there is a history. If there is a history, you might want to talk to the player first and understand their motivations. I am not saying to not ban PVP or things like that; but if you take measures that seem to focus on addressing the reaction of the rest of the table and this results in the paladin still acting out and the party feeling restrained from challenging or addressing it in game; then the problem might grow to one where the rest of players feel their game is not being taken seriously.
Now if this was a one off, you can address the whole table about how to work together and the importance of campaign play. Or if this is common with all the players' characters, then yes it should be addressed that the game can't work with this level of conflict.
But I would still talk to the paladin first and understand why the character would be motivated to behave this way. Is there something about the flow of the game or interaction driving the motivation? The flags you want to lookout for is if the player demonstrates signs that they will be more disruptive especially if they feel additional table rules won't prevent them form behaving a certain way but will "protect them" form other players' reactions.
Again, based on the character's class and party make up, I can't chalk this up for someone playing too much of a character or going overboard with a gimmick. This seems to be an intentional out of type decision. Did the player offer any explanation as to why they made this choice in game?
When this kind of thing happens you really need to ask why this party travels together.
As a GM, I demand that the players tell me this. If a player has a character who wouldn't work in the group then I am very blunt. "Take that character, put it in your book for another game, and make a different character for this game please." The characters don't have to like each other but they do have to work with each other. It's part of the social contract.
From a logistics standpoint, I'm not able or willing to run six different games for six different characters; I run one game for one party.
Next session, don't get out any of your books or figures or maps*. Look your players in the eye and start the (maybe difficult) conversation. Point out that there is only one GM. If they want their characters to split up and start working against each other then that splits up the GM's time. Instead of a 2 hour game every week, they are going to each get a ¼ hour game every week, with 1¾ hours being bored while the GM deals with other players and spends time setting six different scenes. Do they really want that? And even if they do, are you as GM willing to do that? (Personally, I'm not, so the "team player" requirement is a mandatory part of sitting at my table.)
If they are pushing back on this, ask them if they would accept it on a sports field. If a player said, "I'm not willing to mark the opposing player who's about to tackle you unless you pay me" then they would be out of the team very quickly. Or a hiking or biking trip. If one person falls off their bike, and the person with the most first aid knowledge refuses to help unless paid, they are not going to get invited on the next trip. It is, simply put, a dick move.
* If you are playing remotely, don't load any maps or tokens or stats, just have an empty screen. Ask the players to turn on cameras and pay attention.
Good grief! What kind of Paladin is this player playing? Oath of Capitalism?
Yeah I was tempted to say that would break his oath but it's such a petty thing to do that it hardly seems worth the effort to do that.
Imagine losing your divine powers because you tried to extort a couple of extra gold out of a dieing man!
Imagine losing your divine powers because you didn't charge for it.
There are many gods, and many motivations, and for some, the tithe to the church is raised by Paladins doing healing.
Some gods won't give healing unless it is for someone who worships them. Others will but might require a donative.
Some gods want healing done on everyone, without any sort of price -- others will require some sort of trade, or require a service.
There is often a prie for the power of the Gods being given to mortal hands -- who pays it has varied as much as the myths and stories of such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Good grief! What kind of Paladin is this player playing? Oath of Capitalism?
Yeah I was tempted to say that would break his oath but it's such a petty thing to do that it hardly seems worth the effort to do that.
Imagine losing your divine powers because you tried to extort a couple of extra gold out of a dieing man!
Imagine losing your divine powers because you didn't charge for it.
I appreciate you pointing out the tropes but yes I can. That actually seems very reasonable and complaining about it looks bad on the gods part. Though that kind of divine extortion is really more of a cleric thing.
Joke aside paladins dont require gods, most of the existing oaths imply some kind of duty to aid (weirdly, particularly the oath of vengence) and I just generally highly doubt he was coming at it from that angle.
Being a DM takes a lot of time and hard work. You have to prepare an awful lot for your players when running a campaign. I would take it as disrespectful if the players consistently derailed the whole thing with petty antics like this that do nothing to progress the campaign or serve the narrative in any way.
So either talk to them, get an understanding of expectations and boundaries and go from there, or, let them **** around and find out. Every time they good off and do some contrived bullshit just to be ***** to each other, roll to see how much further along the BBEG progresses their plan, and scale things accordingly. For example, if your party is currently trying to stop the BBEG from summoning a hoard of powerful demons or something, eventually they just go ahead and do it while the party is dicking around. Then those strong demons overrun the world, find the party and cause a TPK in round one, because the party spent all their time being stupid instead of getting stronger or stopping the invasion. "Thanks for playing guys, go home and roll new characters, come back when you're serious"
I'll concede that this is a bit of a petty way of going about things though, and still ultimately forces you to have that boundary-setting conversation ahead of the next session, or risk your players not wanting to come back at all.
The bottom line for me is that everyone at the table needs to be invested in what you're doing and respect each other's time. Your role as DM is partly to give them a reason to be invested through an interesting and engaging campaign, sure, but they also have to meet you somewhere in the middle.
Hey this is great. Just get some popcorn, kick your feet up and enjoy the carnage.
In the meantime the bad guy in the nearby dungeon is winning during the infighting, so the town and even players will all be destroyed by monsters soon enough. That’s how I’d DM it.
I appreciate you pointing out the tropes but yes I can. That actually seems very reasonable and complaining about it looks bad on the gods part. Though that kind of divine extortion is really more of a cleric thing.
Joke aside paladins dont require gods, most of the existing oaths imply some kind of duty to aid (weirdly, particularly the oath of vengence) and I just generally highly doubt he was coming at it from that angle.
Just a heads-up for anyone who wants to track down the source of this comic: it is generally very, very, NSFW
One of my players (a sorcerer/warlock) was knocked out by a giant spider and got paralyzed. The paladin was the only one in the party who could cure the paralysis early, but he demanded money from the other players to cure him. So after reviving him, the rest of my players decided to try killing him, so he ran away. Now I'm sort of in a conundrum of what I should do... Anybody got any ideas?
(If it's needed, my party consists of the aforementioned sorcerer/warlock and paladin, another sorcerer, a wizard, and 2 fighters.)
What level are your characters? Either way, you could just run encounters that only the full party could beat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Chromatic (Red) Dragonborn Sorcerer, the best matchup in the game #5e
So i play each week with a group of veterans (military) and they do this from time to time. I emphasize that I don't care if they kill each other but if you are dead you are not being revived. Most of the time this works but they still fight from time to time. If its a one shot I typically don't care but if its a campaign that I have put work in that will go for many sessions I have consequences, i.e they miss out on treasure or story plots that could help them. Also I let them know that revive type spells fail if they kill one of their own. You are the DM...make it known this shouldn't happen and then if it does make it painful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my players (a sorcerer/warlock) was knocked out by a giant spider and got paralyzed. The paladin was the only one in the party who could cure the paralysis early, but he demanded money from the other players to cure him. So after reviving him, the rest of my players decided to try killing him, so he ran away. Now I'm sort of in a conundrum of what I should do... Anybody got any ideas?
(If it's needed, my party consists of the aforementioned sorcerer/warlock and paladin, another sorcerer, a wizard, and 2 fighters.)
Flat out, I run an open world campaign, and ground rules always include no PVP.
Sorry that's not much help.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
When this kind of thing happens you really need to ask why this party travels together. If they have a good reason they can come together around that if not they need to come up with one. That might require one or two new characters from the players. There's also the meta question of if the players are willing to commit to the conceit of having a party and if they can get along.
So I would basically say to them. For the game to function you need to be a party, we need to come up with something to make that work. Either you find a way to reconcile or get new characters. If as a people they can't get along you might need to change who you play with. Then you run with what ever they decide, maybe they replace the fleeing member, maybe the fleeing member finds a new party, maybe the party dies due to the their social failure and a new party finds their bodies or maybe they all catch up and make amends.
Sit your players down - your players, not their characters - and ask them if they'd like to play a fun fantasy game of adventure together. If they say "yes", tell them they need to cooperate and act like friends, because it's impossible to run a game of D&D for people who pull this sort of shit. Because it is. If they can't avoid actively extorting and murdering each other, they can't play D&D.
Simple as that, really. They shape up or they find a new hobby.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is really a session zero question: are intraparty conflicts allowed?
Most D&D games don't allow intraparty conflicts beyond maybe arguments about what to do, because intraparty conflicts are prone to causing out-of-game conflicts, but you do see the other type of campaign on occasion. The general solution is an out of game discussion about what kind of campaign the players want.
If intraparty conflicts are disallowed, the paladin's actions were unacceptable.
If intraparty conflicts are permitted, there's nothing wrong with the rest of the party deciding to gank the paladin.
I suspect most of your players don't want intraparty conflicts and chose to enforce this by killing the rulebreaker.
*Insert 'let them fight' meme*
Seriously though, this is not that kind of game and as the DM, it is your job to tell them to pull their heads in. If they push back saying 'this is what my character would do', that's fine, but that character is not a good fit for this kind of game and they should make a new one if changing behaviors for that PC messes with their head canon. This game only works as a cooperative game. Someone always has no fun when it isn't.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
So what is the story with the player who is the paladin? That is my question. And was this the first time the character tried some shenanigans like this? I am trying not to jump to conclusions here and this why I am asking. From the limited info presented it sounds like a player maybe causing a rift in the game and I am not sure what his motivation for doing so is.
Frustration out playing a role is understandable especially if the player feels like the party is forcing their actions and decisions. I don't think that is the case here though. It sounds like the player was acting out; so the question is if this was a one off or if there is a history. If there is a history, you might want to talk to the player first and understand their motivations. I am not saying to not ban PVP or things like that; but if you take measures that seem to focus on addressing the reaction of the rest of the table and this results in the paladin still acting out and the party feeling restrained from challenging or addressing it in game; then the problem might grow to one where the rest of players feel their game is not being taken seriously.
Now if this was a one off, you can address the whole table about how to work together and the importance of campaign play. Or if this is common with all the players' characters, then yes it should be addressed that the game can't work with this level of conflict.
But I would still talk to the paladin first and understand why the character would be motivated to behave this way. Is there something about the flow of the game or interaction driving the motivation? The flags you want to lookout for is if the player demonstrates signs that they will be more disruptive especially if they feel additional table rules won't prevent them form behaving a certain way but will "protect them" form other players' reactions.
Again, based on the character's class and party make up, I can't chalk this up for someone playing too much of a character or going overboard with a gimmick. This seems to be an intentional out of type decision. Did the player offer any explanation as to why they made this choice in game?
Good grief! What kind of Paladin is this player playing? Oath of Capitalism?
As a GM, I demand that the players tell me this. If a player has a character who wouldn't work in the group then I am very blunt. "Take that character, put it in your book for another game, and make a different character for this game please." The characters don't have to like each other but they do have to work with each other. It's part of the social contract.
From a logistics standpoint, I'm not able or willing to run six different games for six different characters; I run one game for one party.
Next session, don't get out any of your books or figures or maps*. Look your players in the eye and start the (maybe difficult) conversation. Point out that there is only one GM. If they want their characters to split up and start working against each other then that splits up the GM's time. Instead of a 2 hour game every week, they are going to each get a ¼ hour game every week, with 1¾ hours being bored while the GM deals with other players and spends time setting six different scenes. Do they really want that? And even if they do, are you as GM willing to do that? (Personally, I'm not, so the "team player" requirement is a mandatory part of sitting at my table.)
If they are pushing back on this, ask them if they would accept it on a sports field. If a player said, "I'm not willing to mark the opposing player who's about to tackle you unless you pay me" then they would be out of the team very quickly. Or a hiking or biking trip. If one person falls off their bike, and the person with the most first aid knowledge refuses to help unless paid, they are not going to get invited on the next trip. It is, simply put, a dick move.
* If you are playing remotely, don't load any maps or tokens or stats, just have an empty screen. Ask the players to turn on cameras and pay attention.
Yeah I was tempted to say that would break his oath but it's such a petty thing to do that it hardly seems worth the effort to do that.
Imagine losing your divine powers because you tried to extort a couple of extra gold out of a dieing man!
Imagine losing your divine powers because you didn't charge for it.
There are many gods, and many motivations, and for some, the tithe to the church is raised by Paladins doing healing.
Some gods won't give healing unless it is for someone who worships them. Others will but might require a donative.
Some gods want healing done on everyone, without any sort of price -- others will require some sort of trade, or require a service.
There is often a prie for the power of the Gods being given to mortal hands -- who pays it has varied as much as the myths and stories of such.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I appreciate you pointing out the tropes but yes I can. That actually seems very reasonable and complaining about it looks bad on the gods part. Though that kind of divine extortion is really more of a cleric thing.
Joke aside paladins dont require gods, most of the existing oaths imply some kind of duty to aid (weirdly, particularly the oath of vengence) and I just generally highly doubt he was coming at it from that angle.
Being a DM takes a lot of time and hard work. You have to prepare an awful lot for your players when running a campaign. I would take it as disrespectful if the players consistently derailed the whole thing with petty antics like this that do nothing to progress the campaign or serve the narrative in any way.
So either talk to them, get an understanding of expectations and boundaries and go from there, or, let them **** around and find out. Every time they good off and do some contrived bullshit just to be ***** to each other, roll to see how much further along the BBEG progresses their plan, and scale things accordingly. For example, if your party is currently trying to stop the BBEG from summoning a hoard of powerful demons or something, eventually they just go ahead and do it while the party is dicking around. Then those strong demons overrun the world, find the party and cause a TPK in round one, because the party spent all their time being stupid instead of getting stronger or stopping the invasion. "Thanks for playing guys, go home and roll new characters, come back when you're serious"
I'll concede that this is a bit of a petty way of going about things though, and still ultimately forces you to have that boundary-setting conversation ahead of the next session, or risk your players not wanting to come back at all.
The bottom line for me is that everyone at the table needs to be invested in what you're doing and respect each other's time. Your role as DM is partly to give them a reason to be invested through an interesting and engaging campaign, sure, but they also have to meet you somewhere in the middle.
Hey this is great. Just get some popcorn, kick your feet up and enjoy the carnage.
In the meantime the bad guy in the nearby dungeon is winning during the infighting, so the town and even players will all be destroyed by monsters soon enough. That’s how I’d DM it.
Just a heads-up for anyone who wants to track down the source of this comic: it is generally very, very, NSFW
What level are your characters? Either way, you could just run encounters that only the full party could beat.
Chromatic (Red) Dragonborn Sorcerer, the best matchup in the game #5e
oh and I have proficiency with sickles
So i play each week with a group of veterans (military) and they do this from time to time. I emphasize that I don't care if they kill each other but if you are dead you are not being revived. Most of the time this works but they still fight from time to time. If its a one shot I typically don't care but if its a campaign that I have put work in that will go for many sessions I have consequences, i.e they miss out on treasure or story plots that could help them. Also I let them know that revive type spells fail if they kill one of their own. You are the DM...make it known this shouldn't happen and then if it does make it painful.