This is just a hypothetical, not something I anticipate ever having to deal with.
If a character does something directly harmful to his faction, is the DM empowered to remove him from the faction? Many adventures describe members of a faction being contacted by a representative for side objectives. What if, for some inexplicable reason, the PC attacks the faction rep? What if an Emerald Enclave PC gets caught starting forest fires for fun? What if an Order of the Gauntlet PC gets caught murdering hobos?
On a related note, could the DM bar the PC from joining a different faction if he has been caught committing acts considered highly destructive by that faction?
I am guessing this is one of those areas they have not addressed, simply because they can't see it happening; and they are not going to spend the resources on something that isn't going to happen.
Additionally, I don't think they want to encourage it by having rules for it...
You would probably have a very pissed off player if you attacked an intrinsic part of his character like that.
Wouldnt matter if the party attacked him or not...you would be the one constructing the scenario where it could happen.
If they are contacting the PC to give them a mission, why arent they flashing a faction insignia? Or mentioning friendly NPCs they know, or 'dressed for the part'. Or telling the PCs they recognize the person...or any number of things. If you deliberately obfuscate their identity that means you are encouraging the outcome.
Unless the player initiates a faction related goal, or the adventure calls it out(secret missions etc), then you should just not pay much attention to them. They are a vehicle to deliver convenient plot hooks and help the players feel more immersed in the story. Dont use them as an angle of attack against the PCs.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Honestly, I don't know. I know what I would do as a home group DM; however, it's not covered by the ALPG as far as I know. I'm not even sure if it is permissible to award negative faction points for killing your own contact... It's probably something that should have been included in the ALPG since the inclusion of evil characters though...
I don't know how hypothetical it should be treated either... My last adventure a character almost attempted to kill his contact due to the contact's race. He was a reasonable player though and stopped when the rest of the party told him not to do it.
THis is a very good question.
Im still in the camp of thinking the Factions really arnt doing much for the Campaign at the moment. I know everyone is saying it's early days and that we should be patient and wait to see what will happen with them. Im just starting to feel that they were brought into the campaign because... 'they needed to be in an organised play campaign because the other ones have them'.
I hope to be proven wrong,I do. I just dont see any need for them. The renown system could still be there, and indicate how 'famous' an adventurer is.. it might open up certain in game experiences.
As it is at the moment, the whole Faction thing seems simply there so some people can produce some very nice faction folios but beyond that... I just dont see any real effect they will have on the campaign as a whole.
The level 3 benefits are kinda cool, who knows what 4+ holds though.
I'd say that killing your contact would immediately make you fail any mission you might have had for them at least, additional clarification probably needed beyond that though. I don't know if negating faction points is something within the bounds of intent for the AL Staff.
Would that be an automatic failure for other characters of the same faction? I would say yes; just from a logic standpoint. However, it does add a dimension that could be considered disruptive. Would that constitute disruptive? Would another character, let's say of the same faction, be justified in attacking another character to defend a contact? I mean, I just noticed that the prohibition on causing damage to another character is no longer in the campaign documentation compared to past Living campaigns.
If there was another player of the same faction in the group I wouldn't allow him to attack the contact like that in the first place. No ruining others fun, but you can ruin your own fun all you want.
If it were up to me I'd say that just by simply attacking the contact you would lose your faction completely. -shrug-
DMs don't have control over the factions themselves,but...I wonder* if you might consider not awarding the character renown for that session...since that's supposed to be the positive recognition you get from your faction.
* I say "wonder" because i'm sure someone's going to come in and jump all over me for suggesting that a DM can't alter rewards in a module.
Myself, I'd probably just roll with it...every organization has that a$$ who's somehow gained rank and power, even though you couldn't figure out how they were admitted to begin with. The factions don't give much of a tangible benefit to actual game play. However, if I really had an Enclave player burning down forests, I might make them roleplay meetings with Seranolla the Whisperer and be required to convince her to give them secret missions...but not as a punishment, rather as a lesson. (And that's only if I thought the player would get the message).
I'd say the solution is right under Factions in the ALPG: "No Undermining of Other Characters During Adventures".
Being unnecessarily hostile toward a faction contact, forcing a conflict where one doesn't exist in the adventure (and thus dragging other PCs into a fight that doesn't need to happen), can fall under disruptive play and earn a warning from the DM. At the very least I'd have the contact withdraw the mission for that adventure.
--
Pauper
To be fair, there is a faction contact in 1-11 that almost inspired this response from a table I ran.
Given the lack of Zhents, this isn't the exact scenario initially described, but what if there had been?
Ainulindalion wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
I assume (and we all know how that works out) that DMs can report back to AL HQ how his table went, any unusual events, &c. Report back "PC Paladins attacked Vampire on sight" or "Zhent player XYZ attacked his contact." If it does happen - the former is a reasonable possibility - HQ can see the problem pile up and take measures to stop the silly stuff.
I do not expect DMs world-wide to be given a notice "If Zhent player XYZ is at your table, do THIS sub-module because the Zhentarim wishes to punish him..." but I do expect that the Zhents will quit sending Vampires to contact agents who like to hang around with potential PC groups. (Send a mercenary unit commander instead.)
It might be entertaining for Rank 3 Zhents to get a Secret Mission to locate and execute traitorious agent (or ex-agent) XYZ.
Especially if he is one of the other PCs at the table.
Knowing the Zhents I find it much more likely they will attempt to recruit as many vampires as possible just so they can be the preferred adventurer contacts everywhere. Or maybe get a lot of dentures with enlarged canines made.. Thats just how they roll 
Well that any any adventurer insisting upon making themselves a liability in the eyes of the Zhentarim is likely to develop some life expectancy issues... No matter how much the PC's fancy themselves Big Damn Heroes, there are limits to how much stupidity can be tolerated..
The "locate and execute" mission with a table member as the target.. I may have to find some way to make that happen at a table.. Gen Con is too darn far away.....*sigh*
I guess some low level characters could attack a vampire and die horribly.
Considering how nasty they are anyone who rolled high enough to identify one should probably know it would be suicide to attack them.
Lots of things in DnD can have fangs though. Don't all the disguise kits come with plastic vampire fangs and a cheap red and black cape?
Interesting question.
My latest PC is a member of the Zhentarim faction, and actively hates Zhentarims and works against them. She's infiltrating the group to screw it over from the inside; it's a revenge thing. So it's kind of related.
Here's how I play it:
1. If there are other Zhent players present, I go along with everything and complete any Zhent missions. Doing otherwise would be undermining another player.
2. If I'm the only Zhent player, I sabotage whatever Zhent missions they give me by not completing them, but I complete the rest of the adventure as I would if I were part of another faction. This means I should never be getting the extra faction renown bonuses on this character.
I don't think this way of playing violates the rules of AL, and I'd be kind of annoyed at any DM who saw my roleplaying and decided they had the power to unilaterally kick me out of the faction as a permanent thing.
(They can, of course, rule that it works that way at their table for that session, depending on what I do. But in-character, I don't plan on actively tipping my hand to the Zhent leadership, just not playing along with the little games they try to send me on apart from what everyone else is doing.)
I don't think many DMs, however I'm sure there are a few, that will penalize a player for failing to complete a faction mission by ejecting a player from a faction. In an Expedition and Encounter setting, you have organizers to help protect the "player's rights" in this regard. The main discussion involves whether or not doing something grossly outside of just failing a mission, such as attacking a contact for your own faction, should be covered by ejection from a faction. On the other hand, I'm more curious if awarding negative renown is permissible in that situation. I don't necessarily advocate "throwing the book" at someone as a positive.
Ultimately, it's probably a moot point. If a player has a belief that killing members of one's own faction shouldn't have any reprecussions, there's a good chance that the player will fail to note negative renown or a faction ejection on a logsheet. But, a rule that allows it in extreme circumstances might deter some players from entering an extreme circumstance in the first place. It might also stress the non-disruptive behavior expectation to DMs and make them more mindful of that campaign philosophy.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Oraibi wrote: