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.
I'm currently playing a LE character, and one of the things I always consider is what actions keep the character aligned with the party objectives. I like the idea that an evil PC *needs* the group to further their personal goals. Our table has an understanding among the players that we don't engage in PvP, so adhering to that allows the other players to be comfortable with an evil character in their group, and I respect their enjoyment to not let my actions prevent the group from reaching their objectives. This is something that should be set before play, and it sounds like in this example it was not done. An out of session discussion with both players and the DM should happen to work towards a solution.
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.
Yes you can and absolutely should expect people to change their behavior, if they wish to be a Wangrod they can do it somewhere else, that is the choice if you play with people you play to the standard of the the table not what ever suits you. Was there a session 0, did they discuss PvP? we don't know but the OP is trying to avoid PVP or auguments at the table which is why majority are saying;
You already have PvP, so either you need to enforce the no PvP if that was your agreement or expect the players to retaliate,
and you will not fix this with an in character solution if the players aren't in agreement, it will not work without an out of character discussion.
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?
Again, I've not even once said that OOC discussion won't solve the problem. Not even once. Please quote me if I did. Then, in my first post, I tried to adress how to solve the issue in-game. Yes, you're right, the real issue is OOC but let me quote the original post here once again.
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 OP is not stupid and he knows that OOC discussion is the solution OOC but asked, very specifically: "ALSO like an IN-CHARACTER reason as to why they get their act..."
The reason I brought up mind-control spells was to show that sometimes something will happen to the character that they can NOT control and they need to accept that. Both when it's caused by an NPC and when it's caused by a player.
So while you're right that your opinion, just as mine, about PvP doesn't really matter, you also didn't address OP's question at all. Not in your first post nor in any of the following ones.
Indeed, these table rules might exist. Then again, they obviously do not if the situation at hand was reached. Otherwise, OP wouldn't even bother asking help online.
Wriggle out of it? I've said it multiple times but it seems that you're just ignoring it. Since when do I have to ask for a player's consent whenever I do anything that affects them? Do I ask them if they want to be healed? No. They usually don't thank me either and I'm not expecting them to. Do I ask the other players if I can cast a spell that unavoidably will damage them as well as the enemy because they are standing right next to it? No. Otherwise Fireball would never see any use at all. Otherwise there's no point for the Evocation Wizard's 2nd level ability or Careful Spell metamagic. Otherwise, the Paladin who obviously goes to stand next to the enemy - their smites don't work on ranged attacks after all - is not letting the other player having any fun by restricting their spells to single-target spells only. Doing these repeatedly might create problems but they're at faults of both players, not just one.
No one is addressing the in character reason for the party to sort their act out because it is the opinion of the people posting that that isn't going to help, its a minor detail compared to the issue that there is already PvP at the table. The OP already states that they know they need to have a out of character chat and fix it or not, if they fix it the ingame solution is that one players character stops being a jerk because otherwise they don't have allies anymore. Your opinion that they GM and other players can't insist that the one player changes their behavior doesn't address the OPs question either.
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.
At a minimum you need to have that OOC discussion and find out whether the bad feelings between characters are also bad feelings between players, or if they’re both enjoying role-playing it (and if the third player is enjoying being a third wheel to their fire and ice quarrel).
If everybody is having fun with it, then explain that you’re okay with all-out PvP battles if “that’s what their character would do”, and the situation will be resolved by the death of a character and rolling up a new character more compatible with the survivor.
Or, suggest that they work with you to create a plot opportunity to work together. Here’s an idea: the warlock wants to have allies among the people. The warlock should designate some local community as “his people” and make it clear that they are off limits for any of the wizard’s shenanigans. In return the warlock will participate in evil acts against non-members of his group.
If the players are not having fun with it, the above is one option, or simply ask them to retcon their alignments so they’re more compatible. Your wizard seems more chaotic evil to me. Maybe he could try being actually lawful evil, and complying with some kind of leadership structure to the party which doesn’t involve him acting on whims. The warlock could try being true neutral instead of lawful neutral and give up the goal of having local people support him.
Wriggle out of it? I've said it multiple times but it seems that you're just ignoring it. Since when do I have to ask for a player's consent whenever I do anything that affects them? Do I ask them if they want to be healed? No. They usually don't thank me either and I'm not expecting them to. Do I ask the other players if I can cast a spell that unavoidably will damage them as well as the enemy because they are standing right next to it? No. Otherwise Fireball would never see any use at all. Otherwise there's no point for the Evocation Wizard's 2nd level ability or Careful Spell metamagic. Otherwise, the Paladin who obviously goes to stand next to the enemy - their smites don't work on ranged attacks after all - is not letting the other player having any fun by restricting their spells to single-target spells only. Doing these repeatedly might create problems but they're at faults of both players, not just one.
The point of my, and everyone else's contributions to the thread have been to point out that an IC solution is completely incidental to the actual problem, so don't try and get smart with me. The fact that everyone but you in this discussion is trying to offer some constructive help to any DMs either in, or trying to avert this situation seems to have gone over your head somewhat.
I notice you've dodged my question, so I'll ask it again. Is it acceptable for a player to directly and unambiguously breach the consent of another player? A simple yes or no is all that is required, no need to start muddying the waters by trying to deliberately to conflate actions where general consent has been given (healing), or where a player has opportunity to object but chooses not to (fireball) with the actual point in question.
Yes you can and absolutely should expect people to change their behavior, if they wish to be a Wangrod they can do it somewhere else, that is the choice if you play with people you play to the standard of the the table not what ever suits you. Was there a session 0, did they discuss PvP? we don't know but the OP is trying to avoid PVP or auguments at the table which is why majority are saying;
You already have PvP, so either you need to enforce the no PvP if that was your agreement or expect the players to retaliate,
and you will not fix this with an in character solution if the players aren't in agreement, it will not work without an out of character discussion.
Are you the protagonist of this world? Are you always right? Is everything you say the absolute truth everyone must follow? Do you dictate how the Earth orbits the Sun? No. The answer to all these questions is no. Likewise, your behaviour, thoughts and wishes aren't the absolute truth and you CAN'T expect them to change for no reason. Was it discusses beforehand? Did everyone agree on it already? THEN they need to follow the rules. Let's read the part in my previous comment where I said that you can't expect them to do it once more and review it.
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.
Following that example, you can't expect all users to start speaking your native language because you want to. Neither can they expect it from you. I'm not sure whether the rules of this site require you to speak only English, maybe it's so, but it doesn't matter. Even if that wasn't mentioned in the ToS, people would probably still speak English most of the time for simply it is the universal language at our times. None the less, if someone decided to open a thread in, say, Spanish (again, assuming there is no clause in the ToS prohibiting that), you'd have no right to complain.
Secondly, AGAIN, I did not say that I'm against OOC discussion even one, single, time. I've said that I'm for it multiple times, in fact. Yet, so it seems, except for one other person, I'm the only one addressing the DM's question.
No one is addressing the in character reason for the party to sort their act out because it is the opinion of the people posting that that isn't going to help, its a minor detail compared to the issue that there is already PvP at the table. The OP already states that they know they need to have a out of character chat and fix it or not, if they fix it the ingame solution is that one players character stops being a jerk because otherwise they don't have allies anymore. Your opinion that they GM and other players can't insist that the one player changes their behavior doesn't address the OPs question either.
After writing the above, I noticed this.
So, why are you here, really? Just to express your opinion that is shared among everyone else, including the OP, without contributing anything, or at least trying? That's like coming into a trial and saying "I think that if a person is a killer they should be sent to prison." It doesn't contribute anything, it doesn't change anything. It doesn't even address the problem of whether or not the person is guilty. It's like you don't trust the judge to know how to do his work. Not only you'd never be called as a witness with that kind of thing to say, you might as well be charged with contempt of court.
And calling this "a minor issue" doesn't change that fact. Using the above analogy to a court, it's like saying that it doesn't matter whether the person charged with murder is guilty or not, that's "a minor issue" in comparison to the fact that someone is dead.
*Also, as of writing this, a second person tried to address the OP's actual question. Not it makes us 3 out of the 9 people who replied to this thread. 33%.
The point of my, and everyone else's contributions to the thread have been to point out that an IC solution is completely incidental to the actual problem, so don't try and get smart with me. The fact that everyone but you in this discussion is trying to offer some constructive help to any DMs either in, or trying to avert this situation seems to have gone over your head somewhat.
I notice you've dodged my question, so I'll ask it again. Is it acceptable for a player to directly and unambiguously breach the consent of another player? A simple yes or no is all that is required, no need to start muddying the waters by trying to deliberately to conflate actions where general consent has been given (healing), or where a player has opportunity to object but chooses not to (fireball) with the actual point in question.
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a general discussion about a problem that might arise. I really thought it's one person asking help with his own campaign and situation. Perhaps my ability to read the question "got me smart with you" because apparently, answering someone question is not important to you at all, as long as you help someone else one day, maybe.
WAIT! But now it really bothers you that I didn't answer your question? Hypocrisy? Sorry if it feels actually personal at this point but I didn't find a way to avoid that considering your comment above.
So, to your question, YES/NO really simple: Yes.
The answer is not as simple as YES/NO IMO but if reading more than one word to understand someone's opinion (which you specifically asked for this time) gives you a headache, then assume my answer is a YES because otherwise, it'll look to you like I'm contradicting myself. If you DO care to read more than just one word though, then it's obviously more complicated than YES/NO. I think every person should be able to judge the situation and decide whether it's okay or not to breach a player's consent. As you said, he'll choose to heal the player without asking for consent and may not ask before casting that fireball because he can think and choose to do it. Likewise, a player can think and choose whether stealing from another player or casting Suggestion on them is appropriate or not. At the same time, the "victim" too can think and choose whether or not it bothers them that their consent has been broken. It doesn't bother them that they were healed, it may bother them that Fireball was cast on them. They might ask the other player not to do it because it will hurt their character, but in the end, it's the caster's choice. Idk about you, but I will NOT kick a player for that Fireball that also included the other player, even if the "victim" didn't like it. I, just as everyone else, have the abilities to think and choose my course of action.
So... in your mind it's either "plot armour" (of sorts) or "hunger games"? Is there no tolerance for minor actions?
That is up to the table. The table can decide that there is tolerance for minor actions. Mine did, when I was in high school. It was a mistake. It led to everyone but the guy playing the klepto thief being unhappy. One player doesn't get to make the rest of the table unhappy.
If I had been more grown up about it, I would have taken my friend aside and said look, if you keep making your Tasselhoff clone steal from my character, I'm going to stop playing the game because although it is fun for you, I don't enjoy it. Would he have stopped? Dunno. But me LEAVING THE GAME might have sent the proper message and I bet you (in fact I don't have to bet - I know it ) that if I had told the other players I wasn't interested in playing because of the thief, they'd have either left too (leaving him to play solo) or told him to cut it the eff out.
You don't get to have your fun by stomping on the fun of everyone else... and if everyone else says no to the minor things, then it's no. Call it "plot armor" if you want. I call it common courtesy.
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.
Why did I post what I did? because I thought it might help the OP, IMO the out of charter discussion and addressing PvP will fix the issue they have, the in character reasoning will sort it self out.
Your stating that you would allow anyone to breach another players consent regardless of any other considerations because they choose to do so, free will being more important to you than anything else, if that works for you and the people you play with great. That is not how the majority play most are aiming for everyone to have fun at the table and for the GM to be enforcing that social contact that we agreed when we sat at the table together.
I don't make the Earth orbit the Sun (it's doing that without my help just fine) but I can force players to abide by the rules they agreed to or they can choose to walk away.
The point of my, and everyone else's contributions to the thread have been to point out that an IC solution is completely incidental to the actual problem, so don't try and get smart with me. The fact that everyone but you in this discussion is trying to offer some constructive help to any DMs either in, or trying to avert this situation seems to have gone over your head somewhat.
I notice you've dodged my question, so I'll ask it again. Is it acceptable for a player to directly and unambiguously breach the consent of another player? A simple yes or no is all that is required, no need to start muddying the waters by trying to deliberately to conflate actions where general consent has been given (healing), or where a player has opportunity to object but chooses not to (fireball) with the actual point in question.
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a general discussion about a problem that might arise. I really thought it's one person asking help with his own campaign and situation. Perhaps my ability to read the question "got me smart with you" because apparently, answering someone question is not important to you at all, as long as you help someone else one day, maybe.
WAIT! But now it really bothers you that I didn't answer your question? Hypocrisy? Sorry if it feels actually personal at this point but I didn't find a way to avoid that considering your comment above.
So, to your question, YES/NO really simple: Yes.
The answer is not as simple as YES/NO IMO but if reading more than one word to understand someone's opinion (which you specifically asked for this time) gives you a headache, then assume my answer is a YES because otherwise, it'll look to you like I'm contradicting myself. If you DO care to read more than just one word though, then it's obviously more complicated than YES/NO. I think every person should be able to judge the situation and decide whether it's okay or not to breach a player's consent. As you said, he'll choose to heal the player without asking for consent and may not ask before casting that fireball because he can think and choose to do it. Likewise, a player can think and choose whether stealing from another player or casting Suggestion on them is appropriate or not. At the same time, the "victim" too can think and choose whether or not it bothers them that their consent has been broken. It doesn't bother them that they were healed, it may bother them that Fireball was cast on them. They might ask the other player not to do it because it will hurt their character, but in the end, it's the caster's choice. Idk about you, but I will NOT kick a player for that Fireball that also included the other player, even if the "victim" didn't like it. I, just as everyone else, have the abilities to think and choose my course of action.
In case it escaped your notice completely, Pantagruel's original response did contain an in game solution - retire the character and come up with one who won't engage in PvP. A few others offered some solutions, and the discussion was perfectly civil, until you decided to try and stir things up by trying to "both sides" the issue (given that you put "*Multiple people are typing...*" at the end of your response, it's pretty clear that you knew exactly what you were doing).
You are the one who started prevaricating whenever anyone questioned your contributions. You are the one who started expanding the scope of the topic to hypotheticals.
So when I said "don't get smart with me", what I really meant was stop behaving like a child and complaining that people don't agree with your take on this. Frankly, that you think I'm somehow being hypocritical by trying to establish the basis of your argument is just the icing on the cake.
I'm glad that you've answered my question. To be clear, your opinion is that it is acceptable for one player to ignore completely an explicit "No" from another?
NO. It is never acceptable to directly breach the consent of another player. You’re not supposed to do stuff like that and the DM should not tolerate it. I would leave if another player tried to use charm or suggestion to make my character do something I really didn’t wanna do and the DM didn’t stop them.
So... in your mind it's either "plot armour" (of sorts) or "hunger games"? Is there no tolerance for minor actions?
That is up to the table. The table can decide that there is tolerance for minor actions. Mine did, when I was in high school. It was a mistake. It led to everyone but the guy playing the klepto thief being unhappy. One player doesn't get to make the rest of the table unhappy.
If I had been more grown up about it, I would have taken my friend aside and said look, if you keep making your Tasselhoff clone steal from my character, I'm going to stop playing the game because although it is fun for you, I don't enjoy it. Would he have stopped? Dunno. But me LEAVING THE GAME might have sent the proper message and I bet you (in fact I don't have to bet - I know it ) that if I had told the other players I wasn't interested in playing because of the thief, they'd have either left too (leaving him to play solo) or told him to cut it the eff out.
You don't get to have your fun by stomping on the fun of everyone else... and if everyone else says no to the minor things, then it's no. Call it "plot armor" if you want. I call it common courtesy.
You're right. If the table agreed on it, he should follow the rule. It seems to me like the table at hand did not agree on that, though. As for your case, it's unfortunate but things like this might happen. We can't always expect these things and know how they'll play out before trying. I don't think your personal experience means that all players who want such minor actions allowed will stomp over others' fun but I can understand why you'd be more cautious when someone asks that again.
Also, and you might disagree with me here, I think that a truly mature response would be to take that player aside and say something along the lines of: "Hey man, I know we agreed that these small acts are allowed but, frankly, I'm not having fun because of them. How about we try to think of a way we can both enjoy the game?" At least as a start. After playing a few sessions, you'll both be more knowledgeable and know what really bothers you and what you can let pass, even if it's not ideal for you. That way, the other player will probably try to help and think about what of the things he does he can give up on and what he absolutely wants to keep.
Why did I post what I did? because I thought it might help the OP, IMO the out of charter discussion and addressing PvP will fix the issue they have, the in character reasoning will sort it self out.
Your stating that you would allow anyone to breach another players consent regardless of any other considerations because they choose to do so, free will being more important to you than anything else, if that works for you and the people you play with great. That is not how the majority play most are aiming for everyone to have fun at the table and for the GM to be enforcing that social contact that we agreed when we sat at the table together.
I don't make the Earth orbit the Sun (it's doing that without my help just fine) but I can force players to abide by the rules they agreed to or they can choose to walk away.
And we go back to the assumption that they didn't discuss it prior and thus did not agree to that rule. And yes, in this matter, in this game, I'll allow others to break others' consent about things such as this because I trust that we all can think for ourselves and hopefully consider others. It's also a matter of frequency. If it's done repeatedly, it's obviously bad. Just once though does not seem to me like a problem that would break the game. If it is one, then the group was not a good one from the get-go. I hope that every person is capable of tolerating others' behaviour to some extent and understand that they are also tolerating his.
Either they did discuss it before and they aren't abiding by their agreement or they didn't discuss it before and they need to discuss it now. If in either discussion they agree to PvP then the OP wouldn't need to make a post, but since the OP specifically stated that the second player had approached him/her out side the game to say they would retaliate and the OP thinks that will ruin the game, the advice has been aimed to avoid that.
In case it escaped your notice completely, Pantagruel's original response did contain an in game solution - retire the character and come up with one who won't engage in PvP. A few others offered some solutions, and the discussion was perfectly civil, until you decided to try and stir things up by trying to "both sides" the issue (given that you put "*Multiple people are typing...*" at the end of your response, it's pretty clear that you knew exactly what you were doing).
You are the one who started prevaricating whenever anyone questioned your contributions. You are the one who started expanding the scope of the topic to hypotheticals.
So when I said "don't get smart with me", what I really meant was stop behaving like a child and complaining that people don't agree with your take on this. Frankly, that you think I'm somehow being hypocritical by trying to establish the basis of your argument is just the icing on the cake.
I'm glad that you've answered my question. To be clear, your opinion is that it is acceptable for one player to ignore completely an explicit "No" from another?
He did say that, but I chose to ignore it as the solution is entirely one-sided. I wouldn't call what was going on before my first post a discussion but if you view it as one then I guess it's true I stirred it. Yes, I knew it would get such responses as it obviously was the uncommon opinion. People won't allow another person to have a different opinion on the internet and thus will argue. No matter where you go if you post an uncommon opinion, there will be an argument. I don't find this a bad thing unless the argument heats up and gets out of hand.
I don't think I tried to dodge anything anyone said, although you can view my posts that way shall you choose to. There's no way I can really persuade you otherwise. For the record, however, you, along with few others, kept ignoring parts of my posts again and again, so I'm not the only one at fault here.
Yes, I expanded the topic to hypothetical situations, but only to support my claims on the current one. It's called an analogy and I see no problem in using them. The reason I said what I said is that you wrote this sentence:
"is trying to offer some constructive help to any DMs either in, or trying to avert this situation"
I hope you can see how that makes this into a general discussion and not answering the man's question. But then you went on about me not answering your question with a simple yes/no answer, even if I did at least answer it as opposed to you. So yes, you're first saying that everyone but me tries to answer some question you were never asked to help someone who might search for it in the future but then you wrote three lines about how you only want either a yes or a no from me because it seems like my answer to your question wasn't clear enough. So yes, this is hypocrisy.
From google's definition of the word:
"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."
I hope you can see that in your own comments and that I don't have to highlight it for you.
Lastly, again, it is more complicated than that, but in simple terms: Yes. I could give you a lot of examples for situations where you'll see you'll also "ignore completely an explicit "No" from another (player)" but it seems like you wouldn't want to read them anyway.
This post is the OP asking for advice and getting it, then telling them they’re all wrong. To summarize:
1) DM didn’t have a session 0 to lay out the specifics? That’s no one’s fault but the DMs. And now it’s the DMs responsibility to make right and discuss OOC if everyone is alright with it. Not doing this means you’re *going to lose control of the situation further*
2) PVP has already started in your game. Stop under-selling Suggestion as anything less. Detail in your aforementioned session 0 that PVP is allowed in your world. If you try to explain PVP to your players the same way you’re responding us its going to be very confusing.
3) Don’t ever come up with in-game solutions for OOC problems. That’s absolutely the worst way to *deal with issues*.Imagine punishing a PC in-game to force them to do what you want to reprimand the player behaviour. Or rewarding a PC for something their player does at the table. These are sure fire methods to ruin any game going forward and foster resentment between players.
My TLDR advice - run a session 0 for the sake of every DM here and do it now before this train gets derailed.
This post is the OP asking for advice and getting it, then telling them they’re all wrong. To summarize:
1) DM didn’t have a session 0 to lay out the specifics? That’s no one’s fault but the DMs. And now it’s the DMs responsibility to make right and discuss OOC if everyone is alright with it. Not doing this means you’re a bad DM.
2) PVP has already started in your game. Stop under-selling Suggestion as anything less. Detail in your aforementioned session 0 that PVP is allowed in your world. If you try to explain PVP to your players the same way you’re responding us its going to be very confusing.
3) Don’t ever come up with in-game solutions for OOC problems. That’s absolutely the worst way to DM. Imagine punishing a PC in-game to force them to do what you want to reprimand the player behaviour. Or rewarding a PC for something their player does at the table. These are sure fire methods to ruin any game going forward and foster resentment between players.
My TLDR advice - run a session 0 for the sake of every DM here and do it now before this train gets derailed.
I think you're confusing OP and me because in your second statement you're saying that the subject of your post is apparently selling Suggestion as not PvP which isn't something the OP did. It's not the best description of what I was saying either but it's definitely closer to that. In case you did mean the OP, just ignore the rest of the comment.
1. I don't know whether or not DM had a session 0 or not. I was assuming he didn't in most of my comments but maybe he did, that doesn't really matter for your next claims.
2. Again, I'm not the OP and I don't think OP meant that Suggestion is not PvP. He wanted to stop it from going any souther. I said that it's not the same thing because I believe that life is not all black and white and there's a very big grey area in between no PvP and only PvP, but you may take that as you wish.
3. Neither OP nor me nor anyone else wanted an in-game solution for OOC problem. OP said he only wants an in-game solution as well as the OOC which, as far as I understand his post, he's going to have anyway. I tried bringing up a few solutions I thought might help or at least give a line of thought. Most of the others tried to tell the OP to do the OOC only.
I hope that in case I really was the recipient of that comment, I cleared any misunderstanding. If I wasn't, please do ignore this comment.
In case it escaped your notice completely, Pantagruel's original response did contain an in game solution - retire the character and come up with one who won't engage in PvP. A few others offered some solutions, and the discussion was perfectly civil, until you decided to try and stir things up by trying to "both sides" the issue (given that you put "*Multiple people are typing...*" at the end of your response, it's pretty clear that you knew exactly what you were doing).
You are the one who started prevaricating whenever anyone questioned your contributions. You are the one who started expanding the scope of the topic to hypotheticals.
So when I said "don't get smart with me", what I really meant was stop behaving like a child and complaining that people don't agree with your take on this. Frankly, that you think I'm somehow being hypocritical by trying to establish the basis of your argument is just the icing on the cake.
I'm glad that you've answered my question. To be clear, your opinion is that it is acceptable for one player to ignore completely an explicit "No" from another?
He did say that, but I chose to ignore it as the solution is entirely one-sided. I wouldn't call what was going on before my first post a discussion but if you view it as one then I guess it's true I stirred it. Yes, I knew it would get such responses as it obviously was the uncommon opinion. People won't allow another person to have a different opinion on the internet and thus will argue. No matter where you go if you post an uncommon opinion, there will be an argument. I don't find this a bad thing unless the argument heats up and gets out of hand.
I don't think I tried to dodge anything anyone said, although you can view my posts that way shall you choose to. There's no way I can really persuade you otherwise. For the record, however, you, along with few others, kept ignoring parts of my posts again and again, so I'm not the only one at fault here.
Yes, I expanded the topic to hypothetical situations, but only to support my claims on the current one. It's called an analogy and I see no problem in using them. The reason I said what I said is that you wrote this sentence:
"is trying to offer some constructive help to any DMs either in, or trying to avert this situation"
I hope you can see how that makes this into a general discussion and not answering the man's question. But then you went on about me not answering your question with a simple yes/no answer, even if I did at least answer it as opposed to you. So yes, you're first saying that everyone but me tries to answer some question you were never asked to help someone who might search for it in the future but then you wrote three lines about how you only want either a yes or a no from me because it seems like my answer to your question wasn't clear enough. So yes, this is hypocrisy.
From google's definition of the word:
"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."
I hope you can see that in your own comments and that I don't have to highlight it for you.
Lastly, again, it is more complicated than that, but in simple terms: Yes. I could give you a lot of examples for situations where you'll see you'll also "ignore completely an explicit "No" from another (player)" but it seems like you wouldn't want to read them anyway.
This is the last post I'm going to make on this topic, because it's been pretty clear that you haven't been interested in an actual discussion for a while now.
I've been trying to establish whether you thought the concept of consent was important, and you clearly don't. For me and the people I play with, consent is important - and No means No. Anyone who doesn't take consent seriously goes on my "pay no mind" list, and making up silly examples of having to get permission to do random things in the game as an excuse for ignoring an explicit No demonstrates that you don't take the concept seriously. As others have said, if that works for your table, fine - just don't expect that opinion to get no pushback when you post it in a public place.
I apologise if you feel that I haven't responded to every single point you've tried to divert the discussion with, and that somehow makes me hypocritical. As you said, people can read the discussion for themselves and make up their own mind.
Lastly, I wholeheartedly second what Brewsky has said - although for clarity the person arguing with everyone isn't actually the OP.
This is the last post I'm going to make on this topic, because it's been pretty clear that you haven't been interested in an actual discussion for a while now.
I've been trying to establish whether you thought the concept of consent was important, and you clearly don't. For me and the people I play with, consent is important - and No means No. Anyone who doesn't take consent seriously goes on my "pay no mind" list, and making up silly examples of having to get permission to do random things in the game as an excuse for ignoring an explicit No demonstrates that you don't take the concept seriously. As others have said, if that works for your table, fine - just don't expect that opinion to get no pushback when you post it in a public place.
I apologise if you feel that I haven't responded to every single point you've tried to divert the discussion with, and that somehow makes me hypocritical. As you said, people can read the discussion for themselves and make up their own mind.
Lastly, I wholeheartedly second what Brewsky has said - although for clarity the person arguing with everyone isn't actually the OP.
If you're not going to reply - that's fine. I hope you'll at least read this but if not - so be it.
I think we've had an actual discussion. Nobody said that at the end of discussion one of the sides must change their mind or that both sides must reach an agreement. The point of a discussion is trying to do so.
Yes, it seems like I give less weight to the concept of consent in these matters than you do. I don't think we can always receive everyone's consent and I don't think one must limit themselves just because of that, to an extent and in this matter. While my examples may have been random, I don't think they'd be silly but that's in the reader's mind alone. It works in my table because that in the very few times that someone did ignore an explicit No, they were fully aware of what they were doing. I think that the players I played with in those times were all intelligent enough to think and know exactly what's happening and consider everyone else's feelings. For now, our group still holds.
In case you're still reading this, and this time I don't even want an answer, I hope you will read this part and take it to yourself as a person and think about it. You're claiming I'm trying to divert the discussion while intentionally doing so yourself and even ignoring what I'm writing and then saying that I am the one not interested in an actual discussion. If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.
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.
At a minimum you need to have that OOC discussion and find out whether the bad feelings between characters are also bad feelings between players, or if they’re both enjoying role-playing it (and if the third player is enjoying being a third wheel to their fire and ice quarrel).
That's already specified in the OP. "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." Any time you have a player privately communicating with the DM about something they see as a problem, it's a player problem, not a character problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm currently playing a LE character, and one of the things I always consider is what actions keep the character aligned with the party objectives. I like the idea that an evil PC *needs* the group to further their personal goals. Our table has an understanding among the players that we don't engage in PvP, so adhering to that allows the other players to be comfortable with an evil character in their group, and I respect their enjoyment to not let my actions prevent the group from reaching their objectives. This is something that should be set before play, and it sounds like in this example it was not done. An out of session discussion with both players and the DM should happen to work towards a solution.
Yes you can and absolutely should expect people to change their behavior, if they wish to be a Wangrod they can do it somewhere else, that is the choice if you play with people you play to the standard of the the table not what ever suits you. Was there a session 0, did they discuss PvP? we don't know but the OP is trying to avoid PVP or auguments at the table which is why majority are saying;
You already have PvP, so either you need to enforce the no PvP if that was your agreement or expect the players to retaliate,
and you will not fix this with an in character solution if the players aren't in agreement, it will not work without an out of character discussion.
Again, I've not even once said that OOC discussion won't solve the problem. Not even once. Please quote me if I did. Then, in my first post, I tried to adress how to solve the issue in-game. Yes, you're right, the real issue is OOC but let me quote the original post here once again.
The OP is not stupid and he knows that OOC discussion is the solution OOC but asked, very specifically: "ALSO like an IN-CHARACTER reason as to why they get their act..."
The reason I brought up mind-control spells was to show that sometimes something will happen to the character that they can NOT control and they need to accept that. Both when it's caused by an NPC and when it's caused by a player.
So while you're right that your opinion, just as mine, about PvP doesn't really matter, you also didn't address OP's question at all. Not in your first post nor in any of the following ones.
Indeed, these table rules might exist. Then again, they obviously do not if the situation at hand was reached. Otherwise, OP wouldn't even bother asking help online.
Wriggle out of it? I've said it multiple times but it seems that you're just ignoring it. Since when do I have to ask for a player's consent whenever I do anything that affects them? Do I ask them if they want to be healed? No. They usually don't thank me either and I'm not expecting them to. Do I ask the other players if I can cast a spell that unavoidably will damage them as well as the enemy because they are standing right next to it? No. Otherwise Fireball would never see any use at all. Otherwise there's no point for the Evocation Wizard's 2nd level ability or Careful Spell metamagic. Otherwise, the Paladin who obviously goes to stand next to the enemy - their smites don't work on ranged attacks after all - is not letting the other player having any fun by restricting their spells to single-target spells only. Doing these repeatedly might create problems but they're at faults of both players, not just one.
Varielky
No one is addressing the in character reason for the party to sort their act out because it is the opinion of the people posting that that isn't going to help, its a minor detail compared to the issue that there is already PvP at the table. The OP already states that they know they need to have a out of character chat and fix it or not, if they fix it the ingame solution is that one players character stops being a jerk because otherwise they don't have allies anymore. Your opinion that they GM and other players can't insist that the one player changes their behavior doesn't address the OPs question either.
At a minimum you need to have that OOC discussion and find out whether the bad feelings between characters are also bad feelings between players, or if they’re both enjoying role-playing it (and if the third player is enjoying being a third wheel to their fire and ice quarrel).
If everybody is having fun with it, then explain that you’re okay with all-out PvP battles if “that’s what their character would do”, and the situation will be resolved by the death of a character and rolling up a new character more compatible with the survivor.
Or, suggest that they work with you to create a plot opportunity to work together. Here’s an idea: the warlock wants to have allies among the people. The warlock should designate some local community as “his people” and make it clear that they are off limits for any of the wizard’s shenanigans. In return the warlock will participate in evil acts against non-members of his group.
If the players are not having fun with it, the above is one option, or simply ask them to retcon their alignments so they’re more compatible. Your wizard seems more chaotic evil to me. Maybe he could try being actually lawful evil, and complying with some kind of leadership structure to the party which doesn’t involve him acting on whims. The warlock could try being true neutral instead of lawful neutral and give up the goal of having local people support him.
The point of my, and everyone else's contributions to the thread have been to point out that an IC solution is completely incidental to the actual problem, so don't try and get smart with me. The fact that everyone but you in this discussion is trying to offer some constructive help to any DMs either in, or trying to avert this situation seems to have gone over your head somewhat.
I notice you've dodged my question, so I'll ask it again. Is it acceptable for a player to directly and unambiguously breach the consent of another player? A simple yes or no is all that is required, no need to start muddying the waters by trying to deliberately to conflate actions where general consent has been given (healing), or where a player has opportunity to object but chooses not to (fireball) with the actual point in question.
Are you the protagonist of this world? Are you always right? Is everything you say the absolute truth everyone must follow? Do you dictate how the Earth orbits the Sun? No. The answer to all these questions is no. Likewise, your behaviour, thoughts and wishes aren't the absolute truth and you CAN'T expect them to change for no reason. Was it discusses beforehand? Did everyone agree on it already? THEN they need to follow the rules. Let's read the part in my previous comment where I said that you can't expect them to do it once more and review it.
Following that example, you can't expect all users to start speaking your native language because you want to. Neither can they expect it from you. I'm not sure whether the rules of this site require you to speak only English, maybe it's so, but it doesn't matter. Even if that wasn't mentioned in the ToS, people would probably still speak English most of the time for simply it is the universal language at our times. None the less, if someone decided to open a thread in, say, Spanish (again, assuming there is no clause in the ToS prohibiting that), you'd have no right to complain.
Secondly, AGAIN, I did not say that I'm against OOC discussion even one, single, time. I've said that I'm for it multiple times, in fact. Yet, so it seems, except for one other person, I'm the only one addressing the DM's question.
After writing the above, I noticed this.
So, why are you here, really? Just to express your opinion that is shared among everyone else, including the OP, without contributing anything, or at least trying? That's like coming into a trial and saying "I think that if a person is a killer they should be sent to prison." It doesn't contribute anything, it doesn't change anything. It doesn't even address the problem of whether or not the person is guilty. It's like you don't trust the judge to know how to do his work. Not only you'd never be called as a witness with that kind of thing to say, you might as well be charged with contempt of court.
And calling this "a minor issue" doesn't change that fact. Using the above analogy to a court, it's like saying that it doesn't matter whether the person charged with murder is guilty or not, that's "a minor issue" in comparison to the fact that someone is dead.
*Also, as of writing this, a second person tried to address the OP's actual question. Not it makes us 3 out of the 9 people who replied to this thread. 33%.
Varielky
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a general discussion about a problem that might arise. I really thought it's one person asking help with his own campaign and situation. Perhaps my ability to read the question "got me smart with you" because apparently, answering someone question is not important to you at all, as long as you help someone else one day, maybe.
WAIT! But now it really bothers you that I didn't answer your question? Hypocrisy? Sorry if it feels actually personal at this point but I didn't find a way to avoid that considering your comment above.
So, to your question, YES/NO really simple: Yes.
The answer is not as simple as YES/NO IMO but if reading more than one word to understand someone's opinion (which you specifically asked for this time) gives you a headache, then assume my answer is a YES because otherwise, it'll look to you like I'm contradicting myself.
If you DO care to read more than just one word though, then it's obviously more complicated than YES/NO. I think every person should be able to judge the situation and decide whether it's okay or not to breach a player's consent. As you said, he'll choose to heal the player without asking for consent and may not ask before casting that fireball because he can think and choose to do it. Likewise, a player can think and choose whether stealing from another player or casting Suggestion on them is appropriate or not. At the same time, the "victim" too can think and choose whether or not it bothers them that their consent has been broken. It doesn't bother them that they were healed, it may bother them that Fireball was cast on them. They might ask the other player not to do it because it will hurt their character, but in the end, it's the caster's choice. Idk about you, but I will NOT kick a player for that Fireball that also included the other player, even if the "victim" didn't like it. I, just as everyone else, have the abilities to think and choose my course of action.
Varielky
That is up to the table. The table can decide that there is tolerance for minor actions. Mine did, when I was in high school. It was a mistake. It led to everyone but the guy playing the klepto thief being unhappy. One player doesn't get to make the rest of the table unhappy.
If I had been more grown up about it, I would have taken my friend aside and said look, if you keep making your Tasselhoff clone steal from my character, I'm going to stop playing the game because although it is fun for you, I don't enjoy it. Would he have stopped? Dunno. But me LEAVING THE GAME might have sent the proper message and I bet you (in fact I don't have to bet - I know it ) that if I had told the other players I wasn't interested in playing because of the thief, they'd have either left too (leaving him to play solo) or told him to cut it the eff out.
You don't get to have your fun by stomping on the fun of everyone else... and if everyone else says no to the minor things, then it's no. Call it "plot armor" if you want. I call it common courtesy.
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.
Why did I post what I did? because I thought it might help the OP, IMO the out of charter discussion and addressing PvP will fix the issue they have, the in character reasoning will sort it self out.
Your stating that you would allow anyone to breach another players consent regardless of any other considerations because they choose to do so, free will being more important to you than anything else, if that works for you and the people you play with great. That is not how the majority play most are aiming for everyone to have fun at the table and for the GM to be enforcing that social contact that we agreed when we sat at the table together.
I don't make the Earth orbit the Sun (it's doing that without my help just fine) but I can force players to abide by the rules they agreed to or they can choose to walk away.
In case it escaped your notice completely, Pantagruel's original response did contain an in game solution - retire the character and come up with one who won't engage in PvP. A few others offered some solutions, and the discussion was perfectly civil, until you decided to try and stir things up by trying to "both sides" the issue (given that you put "*Multiple people are typing...*" at the end of your response, it's pretty clear that you knew exactly what you were doing).
You are the one who started prevaricating whenever anyone questioned your contributions.
You are the one who started expanding the scope of the topic to hypotheticals.
So when I said "don't get smart with me", what I really meant was stop behaving like a child and complaining that people don't agree with your take on this. Frankly, that you think I'm somehow being hypocritical by trying to establish the basis of your argument is just the icing on the cake.
I'm glad that you've answered my question. To be clear, your opinion is that it is acceptable for one player to ignore completely an explicit "No" from another?
NO. It is never acceptable to directly breach the consent of another player. You’re not supposed to do stuff like that and the DM should not tolerate it. I would leave if another player tried to use charm or suggestion to make my character do something I really didn’t wanna do and the DM didn’t stop them.
You're right. If the table agreed on it, he should follow the rule. It seems to me like the table at hand did not agree on that, though.
As for your case, it's unfortunate but things like this might happen. We can't always expect these things and know how they'll play out before trying. I don't think your personal experience means that all players who want such minor actions allowed will stomp over others' fun but I can understand why you'd be more cautious when someone asks that again.
Also, and you might disagree with me here, I think that a truly mature response would be to take that player aside and say something along the lines of: "Hey man, I know we agreed that these small acts are allowed but, frankly, I'm not having fun because of them. How about we try to think of a way we can both enjoy the game?" At least as a start. After playing a few sessions, you'll both be more knowledgeable and know what really bothers you and what you can let pass, even if it's not ideal for you. That way, the other player will probably try to help and think about what of the things he does he can give up on and what he absolutely wants to keep.
And we go back to the assumption that they didn't discuss it prior and thus did not agree to that rule.
And yes, in this matter, in this game, I'll allow others to break others' consent about things such as this because I trust that we all can think for ourselves and hopefully consider others. It's also a matter of frequency. If it's done repeatedly, it's obviously bad. Just once though does not seem to me like a problem that would break the game. If it is one, then the group was not a good one from the get-go. I hope that every person is capable of tolerating others' behaviour to some extent and understand that they are also tolerating his.
Varielky
Either they did discuss it before and they aren't abiding by their agreement or they didn't discuss it before and they need to discuss it now. If in either discussion they agree to PvP then the OP wouldn't need to make a post, but since the OP specifically stated that the second player had approached him/her out side the game to say they would retaliate and the OP thinks that will ruin the game, the advice has been aimed to avoid that.
He did say that, but I chose to ignore it as the solution is entirely one-sided.
I wouldn't call what was going on before my first post a discussion but if you view it as one then I guess it's true I stirred it. Yes, I knew it would get such responses as it obviously was the uncommon opinion. People won't allow another person to have a different opinion on the internet and thus will argue. No matter where you go if you post an uncommon opinion, there will be an argument. I don't find this a bad thing unless the argument heats up and gets out of hand.
I don't think I tried to dodge anything anyone said, although you can view my posts that way shall you choose to. There's no way I can really persuade you otherwise. For the record, however, you, along with few others, kept ignoring parts of my posts again and again, so I'm not the only one at fault here.
Yes, I expanded the topic to hypothetical situations, but only to support my claims on the current one. It's called an analogy and I see no problem in using them. The reason I said what I said is that you wrote this sentence:
I hope you can see how that makes this into a general discussion and not answering the man's question. But then you went on about me not answering your question with a simple yes/no answer, even if I did at least answer it as opposed to you. So yes, you're first saying that everyone but me tries to answer some question you were never asked to help someone who might search for it in the future but then you wrote three lines about how you only want either a yes or a no from me because it seems like my answer to your question wasn't clear enough. So yes, this is hypocrisy.
From google's definition of the word:
I hope you can see that in your own comments and that I don't have to highlight it for you.
Lastly, again, it is more complicated than that, but in simple terms: Yes. I could give you a lot of examples for situations where you'll see you'll also "ignore completely an explicit "No" from another (player)" but it seems like you wouldn't want to read them anyway.
Varielky
This post is the OP asking for advice and getting it, then telling them they’re all wrong. To summarize:
1) DM didn’t have a session 0 to lay out the specifics? That’s no one’s fault but the DMs. And now it’s the DMs responsibility to make right and discuss OOC if everyone is alright with it. Not doing this means you’re *going to lose control of the situation further*
2) PVP has already started in your game. Stop under-selling Suggestion as anything less. Detail in your aforementioned session 0 that PVP is allowed in your world. If you try to explain PVP to your players the same way you’re responding us its going to be very confusing.
3) Don’t ever come up with in-game solutions for OOC problems. That’s absolutely the worst way to *deal with issues*.Imagine punishing a PC in-game to force them to do what you want to reprimand the player behaviour. Or rewarding a PC for something their player does at the table. These are sure fire methods to ruin any game going forward and foster resentment between players.
My TLDR advice - run a session 0 for the sake of every DM here and do it now before this train gets derailed.
I think you're confusing OP and me because in your second statement you're saying that the subject of your post is apparently selling Suggestion as not PvP which isn't something the OP did. It's not the best description of what I was saying either but it's definitely closer to that. In case you did mean the OP, just ignore the rest of the comment.
1. I don't know whether or not DM had a session 0 or not. I was assuming he didn't in most of my comments but maybe he did, that doesn't really matter for your next claims.
2. Again, I'm not the OP and I don't think OP meant that Suggestion is not PvP. He wanted to stop it from going any souther. I said that it's not the same thing because I believe that life is not all black and white and there's a very big grey area in between no PvP and only PvP, but you may take that as you wish.
3. Neither OP nor me nor anyone else wanted an in-game solution for OOC problem. OP said he only wants an in-game solution as well as the OOC which, as far as I understand his post, he's going to have anyway. I tried bringing up a few solutions I thought might help or at least give a line of thought. Most of the others tried to tell the OP to do the OOC only.
I hope that in case I really was the recipient of that comment, I cleared any misunderstanding. If I wasn't, please do ignore this comment.
Varielky
This is the last post I'm going to make on this topic, because it's been pretty clear that you haven't been interested in an actual discussion for a while now.
I've been trying to establish whether you thought the concept of consent was important, and you clearly don't. For me and the people I play with, consent is important - and No means No. Anyone who doesn't take consent seriously goes on my "pay no mind" list, and making up silly examples of having to get permission to do random things in the game as an excuse for ignoring an explicit No demonstrates that you don't take the concept seriously. As others have said, if that works for your table, fine - just don't expect that opinion to get no pushback when you post it in a public place.
I apologise if you feel that I haven't responded to every single point you've tried to divert the discussion with, and that somehow makes me hypocritical. As you said, people can read the discussion for themselves and make up their own mind.
Lastly, I wholeheartedly second what Brewsky has said - although for clarity the person arguing with everyone isn't actually the OP.
If you're not going to reply - that's fine. I hope you'll at least read this but if not - so be it.
I think we've had an actual discussion. Nobody said that at the end of discussion one of the sides must change their mind or that both sides must reach an agreement. The point of a discussion is trying to do so.
Yes, it seems like I give less weight to the concept of consent in these matters than you do. I don't think we can always receive everyone's consent and I don't think one must limit themselves just because of that, to an extent and in this matter. While my examples may have been random, I don't think they'd be silly but that's in the reader's mind alone. It works in my table because that in the very few times that someone did ignore an explicit No, they were fully aware of what they were doing. I think that the players I played with in those times were all intelligent enough to think and know exactly what's happening and consider everyone else's feelings. For now, our group still holds.
In case you're still reading this, and this time I don't even want an answer, I hope you will read this part and take it to yourself as a person and think about it. You're claiming I'm trying to divert the discussion while intentionally doing so yourself and even ignoring what I'm writing and then saying that I am the one not interested in an actual discussion. If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.
Varielky
That's already specified in the OP. "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." Any time you have a player privately communicating with the DM about something they see as a problem, it's a player problem, not a character problem.