Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Logain08 Oct 12, 2014 5:32:09	Hello everyone,   Last night, I played another session of D&D with my friends (four of us in the group and my brother is the DM) and while out of character we all get along super great, in character our group is divided in two. On one side, there's my sister and law and myself (we play a CG Elf ranger and a NG Half-Elf paladin) and on the other side two friends who play a neutral warlock and a CN fighter. Roleplaying wise, our group is a total mess. Basically, the good aligned characters want to save a kidnapped girl from some zealous freaks that have some nefarious plans, while the neutral aligned characters only care about their own self-interest and see no point in risking their necks for a random girl. Fair enough, I think, as this seems appropriate based on alignment.   Problem is: I have an issue with the way the warlock lies to everyone he meets because he doesn't want to disclose any information about our quest and when I told the captain of the guard in our session yesterday what our intentions were and what information we had already gathered in the city, he completely snapped at me and said his character was completely done with mine. There would no longer be any cooperation going forward. The fighter agreed with him and now I have two characters on my back at all times, who care nothing about our quest and I don't know what to do about it. To be clear, out of character everything is still swell between us, even after our huge in character fight. Now the warlock resents me being a 'typical paladin' (but I feel I try to make an effort to be reasonable, but he might see it differently) and I resent the fact that he is so set on being the morally ambiguous archetype with a beef against 'goody-two-shoes'.   Anyone else has any experience in handling situations like these? Because nowadays our sessions are 70% roleplay since we take so extremely long in deciding on a course of action and discussions with NPCs since we don't see eye to eye. Our DM has also said the we are - in this respect - a horrible group. :-) And since he's my brother, I don't want to make it more difficult for him than it needs to be.   My own frustration with the group as a whole is also rising to the point were I'm of a mind to stop healing the neutral characters any longer: if they are dead set on hating my character and disagreeing with every single thing I say or do, then in character, I feel I am also not obliged to cooperate with them. So no more cure wounds or lay on hands to go about. But then again, that would be detrimental to the survival of the group as a whole.   Sorry for the wall of text: any advice is appreciated!
#2 Strill Oct 12, 2014 7:58:05	The DM should offer a reward for her rescue, a bounty for the cultists, or otherwise some indication that there's money to be gained by defeating the cultists. Something to give the group a common goal.  Diametrically opposed goals with stubborn-headed characters just doesn't work.
#3 Rancid_Rogue Oct 12, 2014 6:56:39	Fantastic post, OP. Don't apologize for its length.    In DnD, PC tension often stems from the problem that your group is having: negotiating between doing what's right in general vs doing what's right for oneself.
#4 Captain_Kobold Oct 12, 2014 7:15:12	Deal with it in-character. It can depend upon what sort of Paladin you are.    Ask the warlock why he thought that the captain of the guard shouldn't know what you were doing there? Can they not be trusted? How does the warlock know this?   Simply tell them "I must try to rescue that little girl from the cultists. I would appreciate your aid because you are powerful and capable, but if you choose not to help, I will gather what allies I can elsewhere and attempt nonetheless."   Ask the warlock and fighter how much they would need to be paid to participate in the mission.   Ask the guard captain if he can help you out in saving the girl and defeating the cultists. Is there a "discretionary fund" that he could tap into to hire some mercenary backup (the warlock and fighter) to help you and the ranger out?   Pay for their aid out of your own pocket. Hopefully the DM will have sorted out better motivators for the entire party before you run out of cash, and you will have demonstrated moral superiority as befits a Paladin.   What do the warlock and fighter have to do instead of rescuing the girl? Do they have another mission or work?   Its worth talking about it in-character. You may be able to work out whether the warlock is acting like that because the player wants to be the dodgy darkboy, or because there is an actual reason behind it.      Bear in mind that people may reward heroes who put their life on the line out of goodness more than they would simple hired mercenaries who just do what they were paid for. The DM could arrange that everyone ends up with the same level of loot from the adventure, with the warlock and fighter receiving most of it in advance in cash as a hiring fee, and the paladin and ranger receiving theirs at the end in items/favours etc as a reward.
#5 BW0222 Oct 12, 2014 21:15:21	You need to solve this issue out-of-character, since the inevitatable consequences of failing to solve in in-character will be the end of the campaign.   You calmly explain to the group, and the DM, that you don't appreciate anti-social character concepts to use out-of-character consequences as a shield against their anti-social behaviour. In other words, you can't be an arse to the point at which other characters wouldn't adventure with you and then expect them to accept it in order to not end the campaign. If their characters can not find a reason to adventure together, to follow the DMs adventures, etc. then your character (and any other sane character) will ask them to leave the party. The DM can then either run two separate campaigns or end the campaign. If players can't think of a logical reason for their characters to continue adventuring cooperatively (greed, safety in numbers, family oath, etc.), then they should talk to the DM for ideas (maybe a geas, curse, etc.), or else make up another character which won't have issues playing together.   If you have honestly reached the point at which your character would not heal another... then your character shouldn't adventure with that person. Would any modern soldier go into a battle even questioning whether he'd heal them? Of course not. The good characters would just say "There is no point adventuring with these two. Lets go back to the church, elves, patron, lord, etc. and recruit two other people who are trustworthy and who want to save people." If the other players don't wish to play nicely... you (and the other player) simply tell the DM that you will be getting up at 3am and leaving the inn. Leave a note to the other players say "We no longer trust you. Please find another group to adventure with. Bye."   If this ends the campaign, then ask the DM during the next campaign to imposs good-alignment restrictions or other requirements such that others don't play anti-social characters. If they won't... then don't play with them.
#6 Logain08 Oct 13, 2014 3:03:03	All of you, many thanks for the fantastic posts and the many possible solutions you provide to help me solve this uncomfortable situation!   Maybe I can elaborate a bit more on our campaign to give you all some more context. The girl we're chasing is actually quite the mystery. With the information we have now, we think she's the daughter of an age old oracle of disaster who was locked away by the villagers after all her catastrophic predictions came true. Basically, we're dealing with a 300+ child that grew up in a cave without anyone there. Who or more specifically what she is, we have no clue. From the get go, the neutral PCs wanted nothing to do with her, while the good PCs wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt and help her. (which I think is an appropriate response from both sides)   Afterwards, she was kidnapped by an organization that we know very little about, save for the fact that they killed a priest during the kidnapping and seem to have some nefarious motives. Though details are scarce. Again, the neutral PCs basically shrugged ("we care nothing about the girl, she can die for all we care") whereas the good PCs wanted to make an effort to try and save her. Since the girl and her true nature are a touchy subject, there was no NPC giving out a reward for the rescue of the girl.   The fighter in our party does have a motivation for going after the organization however, and it is purely based on self-interest: he was strongarmed by a noble in the city to destroy the organisation because the noble wants the town for himself. Basically his character history came back to bite him in the ass and unless he is keen on loosing his head he has no choice but to cooperate. On multiple occasions has he said he cares nothing for the girl, but he does expect the group to help him because we travel together. He specifically looks at me because I'm a paladin. His reasoning is: "you're a paladin, so you have no choice but to stop other people from killing me, so your only option is to help me".   On the other hand, the warlock has no personal motivation to either save the girl or destroy the organization that I know off. The two go hand in hand though: we can only find the girl if we find the whereabouts of the organization and that probably means going head to head with them. Oh, and yes, we suspect an eye tyrant is behind the organization. (we're level 4) So good luck surviving that encounter... In any event, since the warlock and the fighter have a common enemy (me...) they seem to stick together quite well currently. So maybe the warlock will help the fighter because they're buddies now.   So the clash in our group is about the priorities of the group and how we go about the collection of information. For the latter, both the fighter and the warlock seem more interested in keeping as much information secret, where I like to be more open and upfront and see how people respond to that. To make it a bit more complicated; there are several factions in the city (nobles, guards and the thieves' guild) that each have there own motivation for dealing with the secret organization in their own way. So it's all quite complicated.   What I'm going to do now is try to resolve the issue I have with the warlock (and that he has with me) out of character before our next session. Maybe try to understand each other's character motivations a bit better so we can deal with all of this better in character during our next session next week. I do very much like the suggestion of asking the captain of the guard whether there are any funds available to pay the warlock with, or the fighter for that matter. I will also try the other option, perhaps, by saying to the fighter and warlock outright that I'm in it to save the girl and could use their help. If they are not willing, then I could try to find other allies elsewhere. And maybe we can make a compromise: I help them thwart the organization and they help me and the ranger save the girl. That way, everybody could win. But right now, I've quite had it with the morally ambiguous reluctant hero archetype :-)   But we need to solve this, if there isn't the least amount of trust, it makes no sense to fight together and entrust your lives to one another.   Again, thanks for your suggestions! I will also run this by my brother, the DM.
#7 Sjappo71 Oct 13, 2014 4:25:40	The fighter has it wrong by the way. You are in no obligation to keep him alive. Yes, while traveling together you should do your utmost to keep your companions alive. But I suspect that the life of an innocent is more precious to a Paladin than his own or that of his companions. They choose a risky life after all.   It seems to me that you and the fighter are on the same page. He wants you to help him fight that organisation, you want him to help you save the girl. Seems to me that you should be able to come to an agreement IC. Again, you are in no obligation to rush headling into danger just because he does. LG =/= lawful stupid.   That still leaves the Warlock. As others have said, all characters heve to have some sort of buy-in to the adventure. You as characters provide that. It could be as easy as "I like you man, I'll tag along". Or "I'll do it, but you owe me one". Both seem valid excuses for the Warlack in respect to the fighter and the paladin.
#8 thorbardin Oct 13, 2014 8:25:30	Collaborative story-telling needs to be, wait for it, collaborative.    Each player plays their character, and creates a hopefully interesting thread to be woven by all the other players into their character's stories and the DM's larger fiction. It isn't the DM's reponsibility alone to ensure that everyone's disparate threads are neatly woven together, it's actually everyone's responsibility. Often times, the DM is given advice to set up the group before they start, so that their threads are mostly parallel; "You're all working for the thieves guild" "You're all on a holy pilgrimage for the good-aligned gods" "You're all deserters from the King's Army" "You're all NG". If you have inexperienced players and an experienced DM, this is okay and can work.   That said a lot of good drama has tensions between the protagonists, and this can make for the best roleplaying experiences, but it can only be achieved with high levels of trust and empathy between players. Trust to know that it will never derail the encounter, the session, the campaign, (or the real world friendship) and empathy to know how to properly pay off the situation to the betterment of the other player's thread. Inexperienced players are mostly selfish. They don't yet know how to collaborate with their fellow players. They're telling their story from their own myopic point of view. They're not setting up situations for other players to benefit from. They only care about their own thread, their own story. And this is normal in the beginning, it's boring, but hey they're roleplaying, they just need to be told what is expected of them. If one player is the thief with loose ideas on possession, and the other is the paladin who has 37 rules, 6 of them relating to property, then between these two players they have to allow each other's threads to entangle their own. The paladin has to, on occasion, let the thief get away with a theft... by roleplaying the paladin not paying attention, helping a fine young lady across the street, whatever. The players both know the thief is making the story more interesting with that theft, and because it'll be more interesting... he just goes with it. The thief also should "allow" himself to be caught on occasion by the paladin, and have to return property to irate dwarves, their employer, whom ever... because it'll make it more interesting. The thief player shouldn't get away with it always, and the Paladin player shouldn't stop the thief every time. All this subtext happens invisibly and with no effort at the table - between the players. It's usually pretty clear what someone is suggesting, and what's cool is that everyone can then chime in to make the situation even more memorable.  D&D is a team sport. It's like volley ball. It takes two people at the net to set up a spike.  D&D is like a theatre production. It takes all the actors together to bring the play to life. It's not a one-man show.  The players should understand that to keep the group a cohesive whole with disparate threads, they need to support their friends storylines while trying to make their own as interesting as possible.  My advice would be to have the DM speak to the group as a whole about this shared responsibility. That they're not just there to make to tell their story, but to help everyone else tell each other's stories in the most interesting way.  And above all, it's supposed to be fun. For everyone.
#9 Timborama Oct 13, 2014 10:52:54	Logain08 wrote:
#10 iserith Oct 13, 2014 10:44:19	The implicit, but all-too-often forgotten, metagame agreement in D&D is that the party works together to achieve goals. So despite whatever fictional conflicts the character may have with one another, that cannot override the basic concept that the group has to work together in order to play the game. So when things get dysfunctional, this is not the fault of the character; rather, it is the fault of the player forgetting this implicit metagame agreement.   So this is dealt with via an out-of-game conversation to refresh everybody on the need for the party work together despite their characters' disagreements. If a player can't see a way for their character to work with the party's goals, then that adventurer needs to be retired and a less defective one should be brought into play. But since we're playing a game based on our imaginations, figuring out a reason to go along with a quest that is reasonably consistent with established characterization is a simple task for any player that is putting the good of the group first. It's even easier when the party is created with uniting themes or goals at the outset.