So I have a Cleric character that values all humanoid life to a point of individual sovereignty which shouldn't be infringed upon unjustly. The problem is that the party also has a character that hates Goblins and will kill them on sight, even if it is a prisoner that we have taken or a child walking by. Cleric warns Goblin killer to not harm the innocent, or even harm prisoners without the party discussing it over. Next session, Goblin killer tries to kill another Goblin that we saved to get information from but was stopped by Cleric grappling him. Now Cleric plans to knock out Goblin killer and take him as a prisoner back to the Order of the Gauntlet for judgement.
How is the best way to handle this? DM doesn't want pvp, but the character actions and moral compasses are causing pvp. Cleric is giving DM heads up to find a solution, but the Cleric's character can't trust Goblin Killer and considers him an enemy of evil now. Goblin Killer guy knows the Cleric isn't a fan of his character's genocidal addictive murder sprees of both innocents and the guilty, but Goblin Killer is going to keep killing Goblins no matter who they are as an individual. (All because of a scared backstory involving Goblins.) Goblin Killer has no idea that Cleric is going to ambush him. Also not sure how the other 2 party members will act, but it could divide them in half.
How should the DM handle this considering that Goblin Killer and Cleric's characters are on moral opposites and the clash is about to begin at the start of next session? Also Cleric is fine with his character dying and already has a plan B character ready to go just in case he dies.
First off, there's no real good way to handle this as a DM and something like this should have been addressed in a session 0 to avoid hard opposites like this. I'd say at this point the best way to handle it is let it play out however it goes and then have a serious talk with everyone about the situation and use that to put down a solid no pvp rule and have everyone kind of sort their issues. I don't mean have everyone be happy go lucky anime best friends but at least make sure that there isn't any massive core character conflicts like this. Party disagreements are one thing but hard I'll kill you for x and someone else who's a hard I'm gonna do x never ends well
While the Cleric's views seem a little extreme, they also see value in considering the group's consensus about courses of action. The other character is clearly a homicidal maniac, as such, are most of the party evil in nature? Why would they allow this type of behavior? If you are a total nutjob that acts out in the manner described with no prior thought, it is fairly reasonable to think this character would be jailed or face some other form of punishment.
As a DM, if the group and campaign had no acceptance for a PC with this level of mad dog blood lust, I would tell the player their character was on the verge of becoming an NPC in that campaign. If the character continued to try to slit every Goblin throat right out in front of the party and the general public, that character becomes an NPC. If the character puts their Goblin hatred on the back burner and uses interesting or ingenious ideas to to pursue murderous intent, I would let that play out. Oh no, did I accidentally kill ALL of the Goblin ambushers in that battle!!?? Goblin murderer looks left and right, slinking at a distance behind the Goblin peasant in the Beggar's Quarters, waiting for the next dark alley.
Thanks for the replies! I think we are going to play it out, maybe with some change of heats depending on how the rollplaying goes. 3 people of the group out of 5 are brand new to dnd, so its a noob bump. To be fair to the DM, I don't think the complete genocidal bloodlust was upfront on Session 0. I'm sure more lessons will be learned along the way.
This sucks. lol At our table we've had a bit of tension simply based on different values of the PC's and everyone playing their character well. Where we were able to get through it is simply by talking in game and out of game. We're quite fortunate though as we're all friends and have been for years.
In order to avoid ongoing issues though I would recommend having the PC and DM having a chit chat about what should happen. Other than the cleric is the party a group of team killing murder hobos? If so perhaps the cleric needs to lighten up a bit for the party. If there is only one murder hobo perhaps that player needs to realize there are better ways to exert his character trait. Perhaps he and the cleric could have a good chit chat in game (planned out away from the table perhaps?) where they find some sort of common ground. Killing bad goblins is okay but maybe we could try not to kill the good ones. You want to prank them? Sure!
Depending on the how high tensions are at the table I may be less inclined to let it be played out at the table. Feelings get hurt, egos are tested, and everyone involved reverts back to an insecure 12 year old with something to prove. (worst case scenario) I've found it's always best to get in front of potential issues like that. Again, depending how high tensions are at the table.
Obviously there are many different ways this could be talked about or played out. Only those of you at the table have enough information to make a decision about what should be done. At the end of the day you're friends to some degree so figure it out and don't let a game make everyone mad if it can be avoided.
Edit: TL/DR there seems to have been a fundamental lack of communication before, during, or after realizing there is an issue. The only way to get this figured out is to communicate the issue in a mature manner. It should be done sooner rather than later and the fewer people involved in the conversation the better to avoid anyone feeling ganged up on.
The resolution depends largely upon the players in question. A DM can only do so much, and trying to make everyone happy can easily make nobody happy. A DM can help, but ultimately, the players have to sort it out somehow, even if that means DM-sanctioned PvP or a player leaving or...
I've never been a fan of the "set-in-stone" characters or characters with mindless stereotyping to justify evil actions. All of the stories I've watched/read of the latter turn up with the said character being a villain, not a hero.
ex. Powerful "Paladin" who killed all "monsters" regardless: Turned out that his near-godlike "holy power" was from the droves of innocent souls of those he killed in his crusade - all enslaved to his will - and not any deity.
Same story: A Human-abused "monster" and a monster-hating Human are forced to work together and learn to understand (and even like) each other.
The character that doesn't grow beyond the hate will likely become a monster. That's on the player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Have some goblin assassins murder the genocidal player in his sleep. It would be ironic giving the table a good laugh, and hopefully the new character he rolls up is normal.
DM doesn't want pvp, but the character actions and moral compasses are causing pvp.
The key here is to remember that the character actions and moral compasses are both something deliberately chosen by the players. They can also both be changed by the players at any time,
So to rephrase the question - the DM doesn't want PVP, but two of the players do.
Cleric is giving DM heads up to find a solution, but the Cleric's character can't trust Goblin Killer and considers him an enemy of evil now. Goblin Killer guy knows the Cleric isn't a fan of his character's genocidal addictive murder sprees of both innocents and the guilty, but Goblin Killer is going to keep killing Goblins no matter who they are as an individual. (All because of a scared backstory involving Goblins.) Goblin Killer has no idea that Cleric is going to ambush him. Also not sure how the other 2 party members will act, but it could divide them in half.
How should the DM handle this considering that Goblin Killer and Cleric's characters are on moral opposites and the clash is about to begin at the start of next session? Also Cleric is fine with his character dying and already has a plan B character ready to go just in case he dies.
If the players don't want PVP, then the two of them - Goblin Killer's player and Cleric's player - should sit down and figure out how their characters are going to resolve this going forward. A conflict between the characters doesn't have to be a conflict between the players unless they want it to be.
The obvious solutions could be:
1) One character or the other, or both, have character growth that makes them able to work together.
2) The two characters fight and one of them dies.
But again, if you don't want PVP, then the two players of these characters should be the ones to sit down and figure out how they want this to go.
...of course, if the DM doesn't want PVP, and the players ignore this and do PVP anyway (i.e. take actions against each other without agreeing between themselves first)... ...then that's an out-of-character conflict - they needed to be clear during the session 0 that no-PVP campaign was not ok with them. Or the DM should have been clear during the session 0 that PVP was not ok, but it sounds like the DM WAS clear, since the OP clearly knows it.
To be fair to the DM, I don't think the complete genocidal bloodlust was upfront on Session 0.
This needs a session 0-B. You need to have an OOC conversation about this, and figure it out. The DM needs to explain that if the blood lust had been made clear in session 0 it would not have been approved, and that the killer character needs to dial it down. If the player is unable or unwilling to do this, and PVP is not OK, then someone needs to make a new character. I would not be biased against the killer (depending on what the rest of the party is like), but it sounds like the killer was slipped in under the radar, which means the DM probably should ask the player to make up a new character, or find some IC way for the old one to cut it out.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I have a Cleric character that values all humanoid life to a point of individual sovereignty which shouldn't be infringed upon unjustly. The problem is that the party also has a character that hates Goblins and will kill them on sight, even if it is a prisoner that we have taken or a child walking by. Cleric warns Goblin killer to not harm the innocent, or even harm prisoners without the party discussing it over. Next session, Goblin killer tries to kill another Goblin that we saved to get information from but was stopped by Cleric grappling him. Now Cleric plans to knock out Goblin killer and take him as a prisoner back to the Order of the Gauntlet for judgement.
How is the best way to handle this? DM doesn't want pvp, but the character actions and moral compasses are causing pvp. Cleric is giving DM heads up to find a solution, but the Cleric's character can't trust Goblin Killer and considers him an enemy of evil now. Goblin Killer guy knows the Cleric isn't a fan of his character's genocidal addictive murder sprees of both innocents and the guilty, but Goblin Killer is going to keep killing Goblins no matter who they are as an individual. (All because of a scared backstory involving Goblins.) Goblin Killer has no idea that Cleric is going to ambush him. Also not sure how the other 2 party members will act, but it could divide them in half.
How should the DM handle this considering that Goblin Killer and Cleric's characters are on moral opposites and the clash is about to begin at the start of next session? Also Cleric is fine with his character dying and already has a plan B character ready to go just in case he dies.
First off, there's no real good way to handle this as a DM and something like this should have been addressed in a session 0 to avoid hard opposites like this. I'd say at this point the best way to handle it is let it play out however it goes and then have a serious talk with everyone about the situation and use that to put down a solid no pvp rule and have everyone kind of sort their issues. I don't mean have everyone be happy go lucky anime best friends but at least make sure that there isn't any massive core character conflicts like this. Party disagreements are one thing but hard I'll kill you for x and someone else who's a hard I'm gonna do x never ends well
While the Cleric's views seem a little extreme, they also see value in considering the group's consensus about courses of action. The other character is clearly a homicidal maniac, as such, are most of the party evil in nature? Why would they allow this type of behavior? If you are a total nutjob that acts out in the manner described with no prior thought, it is fairly reasonable to think this character would be jailed or face some other form of punishment.
As a DM, if the group and campaign had no acceptance for a PC with this level of mad dog blood lust, I would tell the player their character was on the verge of becoming an NPC in that campaign. If the character continued to try to slit every Goblin throat right out in front of the party and the general public, that character becomes an NPC. If the character puts their Goblin hatred on the back burner and uses interesting or ingenious ideas to to pursue murderous intent, I would let that play out. Oh no, did I accidentally kill ALL of the Goblin ambushers in that battle!!?? Goblin murderer looks left and right, slinking at a distance behind the Goblin peasant in the Beggar's Quarters, waiting for the next dark alley.
Thanks for the replies! I think we are going to play it out, maybe with some change of heats depending on how the rollplaying goes. 3 people of the group out of 5 are brand new to dnd, so its a noob bump. To be fair to the DM, I don't think the complete genocidal bloodlust was upfront on Session 0. I'm sure more lessons will be learned along the way.
Thanks again!
This sucks. lol At our table we've had a bit of tension simply based on different values of the PC's and everyone playing their character well. Where we were able to get through it is simply by talking in game and out of game. We're quite fortunate though as we're all friends and have been for years.
In order to avoid ongoing issues though I would recommend having the PC and DM having a chit chat about what should happen. Other than the cleric is the party a group of team killing murder hobos? If so perhaps the cleric needs to lighten up a bit for the party. If there is only one murder hobo perhaps that player needs to realize there are better ways to exert his character trait. Perhaps he and the cleric could have a good chit chat in game (planned out away from the table perhaps?) where they find some sort of common ground. Killing bad goblins is okay but maybe we could try not to kill the good ones. You want to prank them? Sure!
Depending on the how high tensions are at the table I may be less inclined to let it be played out at the table. Feelings get hurt, egos are tested, and everyone involved reverts back to an insecure 12 year old with something to prove. (worst case scenario) I've found it's always best to get in front of potential issues like that. Again, depending how high tensions are at the table.
Obviously there are many different ways this could be talked about or played out. Only those of you at the table have enough information to make a decision about what should be done. At the end of the day you're friends to some degree so figure it out and don't let a game make everyone mad if it can be avoided.
Edit: TL/DR there seems to have been a fundamental lack of communication before, during, or after realizing there is an issue. The only way to get this figured out is to communicate the issue in a mature manner. It should be done sooner rather than later and the fewer people involved in the conversation the better to avoid anyone feeling ganged up on.
The resolution depends largely upon the players in question. A DM can only do so much, and trying to make everyone happy can easily make nobody happy. A DM can help, but ultimately, the players have to sort it out somehow, even if that means DM-sanctioned PvP or a player leaving or...
I've never been a fan of the "set-in-stone" characters or characters with mindless stereotyping to justify evil actions. All of the stories I've watched/read of the latter turn up with the said character being a villain, not a hero.
ex. Powerful "Paladin" who killed all "monsters" regardless: Turned out that his near-godlike "holy power" was from the droves of innocent souls of those he killed in his crusade - all enslaved to his will - and not any deity.
Same story: A Human-abused "monster" and a monster-hating Human are forced to work together and learn to understand (and even like) each other.
The character that doesn't grow beyond the hate will likely become a monster. That's on the player.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Act like a monster and you become a monster.
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.
Have some goblin assassins murder the genocidal player in his sleep. It would be ironic giving the table a good laugh, and hopefully the new character he rolls up is normal.
If the players don't want PVP, then the two of them - Goblin Killer's player and Cleric's player - should sit down and figure out how their characters are going to resolve this going forward. A conflict between the characters doesn't have to be a conflict between the players unless they want it to be.
The obvious solutions could be:
1) One character or the other, or both, have character growth that makes them able to work together.
2) The two characters fight and one of them dies.
But again, if you don't want PVP, then the two players of these characters should be the ones to sit down and figure out how they want this to go.
...of course, if the DM doesn't want PVP, and the players ignore this and do PVP anyway (i.e. take actions against each other without agreeing between themselves first)... ...then that's an out-of-character conflict - they needed to be clear during the session 0 that no-PVP campaign was not ok with them. Or the DM should have been clear during the session 0 that PVP was not ok, but it sounds like the DM WAS clear, since the OP clearly knows it.
This needs a session 0-B. You need to have an OOC conversation about this, and figure it out. The DM needs to explain that if the blood lust had been made clear in session 0 it would not have been approved, and that the killer character needs to dial it down. If the player is unable or unwilling to do this, and PVP is not OK, then someone needs to make a new character. I would not be biased against the killer (depending on what the rest of the party is like), but it sounds like the killer was slipped in under the radar, which means the DM probably should ask the player to make up a new character, or find some IC way for the old one to cut it out.
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.