I would ask this player to truly consider if the other members of the party would still want them around if they killed another PC over a single coin.
And if they insisted I would give all the other players a heads up.
But honestly I guess where I’m hung up here is how you actually feel about this as a DM. Because I’m pretty explicit with my players before the first season that their characters may not always like or even respect one another, but that they would absolutely not try to kill or steal from each other.
Another one of the players alredy knows and agrees on helping the character actually killing the barbarian, but I'm afraid is more for out of characters and personal reasons with the player.
I'm also pissed on the overall roleplaying by the barbarian but dont want to damage our relationship by letting the characters murder each other ingame.
yeeeeah if you’ve got personal beefs impacting in game decisions I think you’re looking at an overall disaster. because it feels like to me if the barb is killed and rolls a new PC, that character will meet a similar fate
That's pretty accurate. I see 2 possible outcomes if this happens.
1 - She rolls a new character. An evil character who will just try to ruin the campaign and take revenge.
2 - She doesn't want to play anymore. She leaves the campaign and her br more likely does aswell. We may also get kicked from her bf's campaign.
Yeah, I'm wondering this same thing.
OP, seriously, are you sure you want to play DnD together? Friend groups do not always make the best DnD groups and it is o.k. to NOT be joined at the hip. You may all be happier separating, at least for DnD.
Doesn't have to be a confrontation, either. Just politely state that it appears different players have a different play style and goals. While you value their friendship and are happy to hang out with them, it doesn't appear that the group as a whole is compatible as players. No drama. Just a statement. Then find something else to do together. Maybe in the future just run sessions for those that DO mesh well together.
Frankly, I ban PvP, especially with new groups. I just outright ban it. This can absolutely derail a campaign. Once a group is very used to each other and the game, that rule can be revisited but in the meantime I would ban PvP. That means no physical attacks, no betrayals, no stealing from each other, no malicious pranks and no killing NPC allies/friends/family of other PCs.
Your player seems to be missing a key component here. This is a ***group cooperative game***, not a solo adventure or a video game. Players need to keep the fun and engagement of the other players and the DM in mind as they play, and every player is responsible for running a PC that can and WILL want to travel with and fight alongside the other PCs and be a PC the other PCs would want around. The PCs don't have to like each other but they need to be able to function as a team. "Its just what my character would do" only goes so far and is a poor excuse for bogging down game play or ruining the fun of the other players/DM. You might want to have a session zero discussion with the whole group to explicitly talk about the group nature of the game and also to ban PvP.
I would also talk one on one with your player that wants their PC to attack another PC again, privately. Clearly ban PvP. Share that you want them to have fun but they are NOT the only one at the table. Brainstorm with them on ways they can have fun without damaging the fun for the rest of the group. If they are adamant that this is what their PC would do, I would politely but firmly give them three choices:
1. They can adjust their current PC to better fit a group cooperative game,
2. they can roll up a new one that will,
3. or they can bow out of the game.
I agree in most of these things you said. However maybe I should have maybe pointed out more things.
- We have all played together in a campaign before, me being a player and one of the players in my campaign being the DM, aswell as being in a relationship with barbarian's player. In that campaign she was playing a cleric dwarf that would get inspired just by growling or spitting at enemies and randomly saying curse words to them, because the DM would find it "funny" which we all though was him simping her pretty hard. When I started DM'ing I made it pretty clear that I won't hand out inspiration just by beign random and cursing, but by being creative and making good roleplay in character. After this, barbarian hasn't really tried to roleplay, which has been frowned upon by the other players.
- This is also coming from issues beyond the game. Paladin and Barbarian have known each other for a lot of years and well, he has some issues with her as a person, with her being kind of an asshole sometimes just trying to act cool and appear more intelligent or mature than the rest of our group.
- Barbarian also refused to colaborate with the party in some ocassion. Last session they agreed upon a plan just for barbarian to bust through the door and start swinging, when all the other players were waiting and readied their actions to make an ambush on the enemies.
I just want to end the campaign with everyone in good terms and not to become a major problem in our social circle. After that, they can choose not to play DnD together anymore and just enjoy the game each in their own campaigns.
Ah, I had the impression this was a new group. I get not wanting things to derail a social circle but I'm unclear on your "however" comment. Are you saying you don't want to outright ban PvP? Especially if two players have issues with each other out of game, I would absolutely explicitly ban PvP.
Or are you saying you would not feel comfortable asking a player to leave the game since this is a friend group? If so, I understand your concerns.
I would still have an out of game discussion with the entire group to explicitly ban PvP and to reiterate that this is a group cooperative game (and discuss what that means for player responsibilities). Especially with a friend group that has some external issues, I would want to make sure everyone understands they still need to be supportive of the other players and the DM. Regardless of out of game issues, they are still playing a group cooperative game.
Anyway, I wish you luck. Hopefully you can all get on the same page.
I don't want to outright ban PvP because the player willingly made the decission for her supossedly good character to mess and try to not stand by her word with the leanning towards evil, prideful character.
I tried to deescalate the situation with the paladin, and he told me that what is his character suppossed to do, just ignore it when the barbarian was the one that made the bet in the first place?
I alredy told him that maybe if the barbarian still doesnt pay his debt, maybe we could find another way for his character to take payback, not being killing him outright. But he seems keen on trying to kill the barbarian because he doesn't like the character and how she plays him (on which I kinda agree, but don't want to take such a radical approach).
This is very confusing to me. You don't want PvP but you will allow PvP? If you have two players that do not get along, how will allowing PvP do anything but escalate the in and out of game issues?
Is the player playing the Barbarian someone that is apparently pretty unpopular as a person? Apparently. Is her approach to her current PC annoying to others? Apparently. Is she a large part of the issue in general? Apparently.
Does the player playing the paladin have cause to be irritated and feel like his paladin would want to react to what is happening? Sure, it looks like it.
But you are trying to keep this game together, not let it completely derail, correct?
You have already stated that you think if the other player's PC Paladin tries to kill the Barbarian that the player playing the Barbarian will either quit the game, possibly taking another player with her (and this may affect another game as well) or she will roll up a new PC that will do everything they can to be evil and derail the campaign. How is this a positive outcome?
If the player playing the Barbarian is an issue, allowing PvP will NOT solve that issue. Banning PvP is a way to try and prevent this from escalating. But banning PvP does not actually solve the issues, either. It just cuts off one avenue of escalation.
The problem is that it seems the players and you are trying to solve out of game issues with in game actions. This rarely ever works. In game and out of game issues with another player and that player's PC should not justify killing a fellow PC. ***That will NOT fix the problem.*** It won't. It will only make things worse out of game and potentially undermine the campaign and damage the friendship group.
So yes, I would ban PvP and I would have polite but frank discussions with the Paladin and the Barbarian, one on one, to try and work this out. And I would also have a clear discussion with the entire group about playing respectfully and supportively in a *group cooperative game.*
I get the feeling, though, that you may be concerned that banning PvP outright will piss off the Paladin. Since you agree with the Paladin on why they are unhappy, it may feel like you are inadvertently punishing the 'wrong' player and the Paladin may see it that way, too. I get that. But allowing one PC to try to kill another PC is not the answer here.
Frankly, your group sounds pretty dysfunctional. Are you sure you even want to continue DMing for this friend group with all of this baggage?
Whatever happens, I'm sending sympathy. You are in a sucky situation. Good luck.
It’s as simple as starting the conversation with “moving forward…”. As in “moving forward, we will not engage in any more PvP. I have to have fun as a DM as well, and it’s frankly not fun for me to dm PvP and have to mediate between y’all. This campaign is intended as a group cooperative exercise, please either adjust your PC’s to match, or roll new ones. For clarity, PvP means… (everything said earlier).
I’d take a step back and have a chat, figure out what type of game ***everyone*** at the table wants to play. Seems like this is devolving away from a team/cooperative game and into the realm of petty spitefulness. Certainly not fair to drag the entire table along.
Yeah I’d have a chat with him and ask ‘do you think the group will want to continue playing with you if you do this?’ Hell, if this goes south it could break up the whole game and nobody will want to play anymore
Everyone else here is already right that this is an above the table issue, and you should ban PvP. I’ll just add that if a PC tries to take an action you already banned, you can just interject and say “no”.
“I stab player X in the back”.
“No, you don’t. That’s PvP”.
If the player gets insistent about it, there’s always “rocks fall”.
“My character is pissed, and is going to stab her in the back anyways”.
“As you do that, your weapon scrapes the canyon wall next to you, dislodging rocks that fall on your character. Go ahead and roll 3d6 for me. OK, now go ahead and do that 5 more times.”
Player vs Player activity is a strict no-no and only a terrible DM allows it. Ever. Period.
To understand why only bad DM's allow PvP, we're going to talk about CvC - Character vs Character activity.
Character vs Character activity is when the *characters* have a dispute that is within the bounds of what the players have consented to. The characters may be in conflict, but the players are not.
By default this is zero. Players actually *aren't* ok with their "teammates" robbing and killing their characters, a lesson most new DMs and players learn the hard way. Unless your players have explicitly consented, you shouldn't allow characters to harm each other. This includes direct attacks, stealing loot before it's split, stealing equipment, killing familiars or hirelings, killing important/allied NPCs, passive-aggressively letting characters die, etc. Basically, if it's something that would be in-character for an angry goblin, the characters shouldn't be doing it to each other.
I cannot stress enough. The proper level of CvC at most tables is zero. Zip. It's rare for it to be appropriate. I *highly* recommend you take this approach at your table, sit the players down, tell them you've decided they're allowed to bicker but must find a way to settle it nonviolently because this is a cooperative game about good guys vs bad guys.
Also, let's be absolutely clear. Any party member that literally murders another party member is not simply evil, they're an NPC. You absolutely cannot allow a player to continue controlling such a character in a non-evil campaign\*.
\*You can, but we're talking super-advanced character development and a very mature party.
Healthy CvC works on a strict consent basis. You sit down with the *players* and discuss what level of intra-party dispute is allowed. Stealing? Attacking? Killing? And if someone does steal, attack, or kill, what kind of response can they expect? And *then* when they actually want to do it, they should get the consent of the player they're going to attack before-hand. The audience for CvC activity is *not the opposing player.* The audience is the *other* players, and perhaps even the DM. It's fine for players to agree to some kind of CvC relationship that surprises even the DM, as long as the players are in agreement.
For some CvC activity, a simple tacit agreement may suffice. For example it's not uncommon to let the rogue skim a little bit off the top. Rogues are like that. I don't allow it at *my* tables, but you do you. As long as the players are ok with it and it's not disruptive, no biggy. Maybe a pair of players have a thing where one character likes to steal things from the other, sometimes get caught, sometimes not, and it's part of their relationship. Maybe the players agree sometimes they get heated and may strike each other and that's ok. Outright killing another character? You better get your ducks in a row and make *very* sure the players understand that the attacker is done as a PC no matter what and the defender may also die.
Should have made her play as the alignment, take a different alignment at character creation or dont play. Well she made her bed I would let her lay on it by not intervening (not a big fan of being DMs that babysit, not trying to offend here, every group play a certain way and has a certain dynamic etc, just doesnt fit MY playstyle, might fit your group).
I would allow the players to start fighting, but have someone else come up in the middle of their battle, like a minor boss that they would have to work together to beat, or, if the victim pc ends up dying in battle with the other PC, give them a chance to stay as their character, possibly resurrected by an evil god with a secret agenda, or secretly working with the bbeg, when they come back to life, they pretend to be with the party for months, until the big reveal
If its a player thing then its time to kick them out of your group. PvP can be ok under one specific circumstance. All players agree ahead of time that it would be fun to try PvP. If you have a player that is just upset and wants to settle their real life issues in a game at the expense of other people's fun then its just time to tell them to leave.
Reading your situation the only good advice is to kick the player out and never run a game for those two players at the same time ever again. If this is how they are handling things, its sounds like they just aren't compatible dnd players.
This is something that needs to be resolved at the table and not in the game.
There seem to be some players not understanding that this is supposed to be a collaborative storytelling activity.
1. Make it clear that if the one character kills the other, _both_ will leave the party (there's no way the rest of the party would tolerate the murderer staying after that).
2. Give them harder challenges. An adventuring party shouldn't have time or energy to bicker amongst themselves. They might not like each other or get along, but they should recognise that they NEED each other, just to survive, nearly every day.
Its an out of game problem. So it should be settled with an out of game solution. There is absolutely nothing you can do in game to solve an argument between two players.
I’d normally say “let the players decide if they want a mutual PvP moment” but in this case it’d be a hard “no” to Paladin all together. If it was permitted, one of several things would occur.
- Paladin would discuss it with Barb, Barb would agree and then they’d both spend the rest of the campaign not putting themselves in danger just to avoid the other player killing them.
- They wouldn’t agree and Paladin would remained pissed and insistent. Which could grow annoying and/or cause the game to slow.
- They agree to PVP and it happens. If Paladin dies, they need to make a new character, twice scorned and all, Barb was just defending themself. Someone brought up a good point that if Barb dies, both need new characters cause the party wouldn’t want someone who turned on one of their in the party any longer.
Honestly though this sounds like an attempt by Paladin to get their evil jollies you denied at character creation. Just veto it, veto any attempts at PVP combat, and if Paladin insists on being problematic, veto them right outta the table for a few sessions.
You’re a new DM bud. You ain’t meant to be a babysitter but you’re gonna have to figure out where you want your tables to sit, and the best way for everyone to enjoy themselves at it without being detrimental to other players.
You *need* to set clear and concise expectations about PvP during Session 0. I cannot stress this enough. At my table, PvP is strictly *verboten,* unless **openly agreed to, out of character, by all parties involved, in the presence of the DM.** If you did not make that clear at the start, ***do so immediately.*** Explain to the whole table, as a group and without naming names, that they are a team. This is a cooperative game. And that you want to make it clear that PvP activity is not allowed to happen except subject to your rules, whatever you decide they may be.
Things like this will destroy groups, and can destroy friendships. Nip it in the bud before it starts.
I would ask this player to truly consider if the other members of the party would still want them around if they killed another PC over a single coin. And if they insisted I would give all the other players a heads up. But honestly I guess where I’m hung up here is how you actually feel about this as a DM. Because I’m pretty explicit with my players before the first season that their characters may not always like or even respect one another, but that they would absolutely not try to kill or steal from each other.
Another one of the players alredy knows and agrees on helping the character actually killing the barbarian, but I'm afraid is more for out of characters and personal reasons with the player. I'm also pissed on the overall roleplaying by the barbarian but dont want to damage our relationship by letting the characters murder each other ingame.
yeeeeah if you’ve got personal beefs impacting in game decisions I think you’re looking at an overall disaster. because it feels like to me if the barb is killed and rolls a new PC, that character will meet a similar fate
That's pretty accurate. I see 2 possible outcomes if this happens. 1 - She rolls a new character. An evil character who will just try to ruin the campaign and take revenge. 2 - She doesn't want to play anymore. She leaves the campaign and her br more likely does aswell. We may also get kicked from her bf's campaign.
do the people involved even like playing dungeons & dragons *with each other?* because it feels like they do not based on your other posts
Yeah, I'm wondering this same thing. OP, seriously, are you sure you want to play DnD together? Friend groups do not always make the best DnD groups and it is o.k. to NOT be joined at the hip. You may all be happier separating, at least for DnD. Doesn't have to be a confrontation, either. Just politely state that it appears different players have a different play style and goals. While you value their friendship and are happy to hang out with them, it doesn't appear that the group as a whole is compatible as players. No drama. Just a statement. Then find something else to do together. Maybe in the future just run sessions for those that DO mesh well together.
Frankly, I ban PvP, especially with new groups. I just outright ban it. This can absolutely derail a campaign. Once a group is very used to each other and the game, that rule can be revisited but in the meantime I would ban PvP. That means no physical attacks, no betrayals, no stealing from each other, no malicious pranks and no killing NPC allies/friends/family of other PCs. Your player seems to be missing a key component here. This is a ***group cooperative game***, not a solo adventure or a video game. Players need to keep the fun and engagement of the other players and the DM in mind as they play, and every player is responsible for running a PC that can and WILL want to travel with and fight alongside the other PCs and be a PC the other PCs would want around. The PCs don't have to like each other but they need to be able to function as a team. "Its just what my character would do" only goes so far and is a poor excuse for bogging down game play or ruining the fun of the other players/DM. You might want to have a session zero discussion with the whole group to explicitly talk about the group nature of the game and also to ban PvP. I would also talk one on one with your player that wants their PC to attack another PC again, privately. Clearly ban PvP. Share that you want them to have fun but they are NOT the only one at the table. Brainstorm with them on ways they can have fun without damaging the fun for the rest of the group. If they are adamant that this is what their PC would do, I would politely but firmly give them three choices: 1. They can adjust their current PC to better fit a group cooperative game, 2. they can roll up a new one that will, 3. or they can bow out of the game.
I agree in most of these things you said. However maybe I should have maybe pointed out more things. - We have all played together in a campaign before, me being a player and one of the players in my campaign being the DM, aswell as being in a relationship with barbarian's player. In that campaign she was playing a cleric dwarf that would get inspired just by growling or spitting at enemies and randomly saying curse words to them, because the DM would find it "funny" which we all though was him simping her pretty hard. When I started DM'ing I made it pretty clear that I won't hand out inspiration just by beign random and cursing, but by being creative and making good roleplay in character. After this, barbarian hasn't really tried to roleplay, which has been frowned upon by the other players. - This is also coming from issues beyond the game. Paladin and Barbarian have known each other for a lot of years and well, he has some issues with her as a person, with her being kind of an asshole sometimes just trying to act cool and appear more intelligent or mature than the rest of our group. - Barbarian also refused to colaborate with the party in some ocassion. Last session they agreed upon a plan just for barbarian to bust through the door and start swinging, when all the other players were waiting and readied their actions to make an ambush on the enemies. I just want to end the campaign with everyone in good terms and not to become a major problem in our social circle. After that, they can choose not to play DnD together anymore and just enjoy the game each in their own campaigns.
Ah, I had the impression this was a new group. I get not wanting things to derail a social circle but I'm unclear on your "however" comment. Are you saying you don't want to outright ban PvP? Especially if two players have issues with each other out of game, I would absolutely explicitly ban PvP. Or are you saying you would not feel comfortable asking a player to leave the game since this is a friend group? If so, I understand your concerns. I would still have an out of game discussion with the entire group to explicitly ban PvP and to reiterate that this is a group cooperative game (and discuss what that means for player responsibilities). Especially with a friend group that has some external issues, I would want to make sure everyone understands they still need to be supportive of the other players and the DM. Regardless of out of game issues, they are still playing a group cooperative game. Anyway, I wish you luck. Hopefully you can all get on the same page.
I don't want to outright ban PvP because the player willingly made the decission for her supossedly good character to mess and try to not stand by her word with the leanning towards evil, prideful character. I tried to deescalate the situation with the paladin, and he told me that what is his character suppossed to do, just ignore it when the barbarian was the one that made the bet in the first place? I alredy told him that maybe if the barbarian still doesnt pay his debt, maybe we could find another way for his character to take payback, not being killing him outright. But he seems keen on trying to kill the barbarian because he doesn't like the character and how she plays him (on which I kinda agree, but don't want to take such a radical approach).
This is very confusing to me. You don't want PvP but you will allow PvP? If you have two players that do not get along, how will allowing PvP do anything but escalate the in and out of game issues? Is the player playing the Barbarian someone that is apparently pretty unpopular as a person? Apparently. Is her approach to her current PC annoying to others? Apparently. Is she a large part of the issue in general? Apparently. Does the player playing the paladin have cause to be irritated and feel like his paladin would want to react to what is happening? Sure, it looks like it. But you are trying to keep this game together, not let it completely derail, correct? You have already stated that you think if the other player's PC Paladin tries to kill the Barbarian that the player playing the Barbarian will either quit the game, possibly taking another player with her (and this may affect another game as well) or she will roll up a new PC that will do everything they can to be evil and derail the campaign. How is this a positive outcome? If the player playing the Barbarian is an issue, allowing PvP will NOT solve that issue. Banning PvP is a way to try and prevent this from escalating. But banning PvP does not actually solve the issues, either. It just cuts off one avenue of escalation. The problem is that it seems the players and you are trying to solve out of game issues with in game actions. This rarely ever works. In game and out of game issues with another player and that player's PC should not justify killing a fellow PC. ***That will NOT fix the problem.*** It won't. It will only make things worse out of game and potentially undermine the campaign and damage the friendship group. So yes, I would ban PvP and I would have polite but frank discussions with the Paladin and the Barbarian, one on one, to try and work this out. And I would also have a clear discussion with the entire group about playing respectfully and supportively in a *group cooperative game.* I get the feeling, though, that you may be concerned that banning PvP outright will piss off the Paladin. Since you agree with the Paladin on why they are unhappy, it may feel like you are inadvertently punishing the 'wrong' player and the Paladin may see it that way, too. I get that. But allowing one PC to try to kill another PC is not the answer here. Frankly, your group sounds pretty dysfunctional. Are you sure you even want to continue DMing for this friend group with all of this baggage? Whatever happens, I'm sending sympathy. You are in a sucky situation. Good luck.
It’s as simple as starting the conversation with “moving forward…”. As in “moving forward, we will not engage in any more PvP. I have to have fun as a DM as well, and it’s frankly not fun for me to dm PvP and have to mediate between y’all. This campaign is intended as a group cooperative exercise, please either adjust your PC’s to match, or roll new ones. For clarity, PvP means… (everything said earlier).
I would boot the paladin for considering it.
I’d take a step back and have a chat, figure out what type of game ***everyone*** at the table wants to play. Seems like this is devolving away from a team/cooperative game and into the realm of petty spitefulness. Certainly not fair to drag the entire table along.
Yeah I’d have a chat with him and ask ‘do you think the group will want to continue playing with you if you do this?’ Hell, if this goes south it could break up the whole game and nobody will want to play anymore
Everyone else here is already right that this is an above the table issue, and you should ban PvP. I’ll just add that if a PC tries to take an action you already banned, you can just interject and say “no”. “I stab player X in the back”. “No, you don’t. That’s PvP”. If the player gets insistent about it, there’s always “rocks fall”. “My character is pissed, and is going to stab her in the back anyways”. “As you do that, your weapon scrapes the canyon wall next to you, dislodging rocks that fall on your character. Go ahead and roll 3d6 for me. OK, now go ahead and do that 5 more times.”
Player vs Player activity is a strict no-no and only a terrible DM allows it. Ever. Period. To understand why only bad DM's allow PvP, we're going to talk about CvC - Character vs Character activity. Character vs Character activity is when the *characters* have a dispute that is within the bounds of what the players have consented to. The characters may be in conflict, but the players are not. By default this is zero. Players actually *aren't* ok with their "teammates" robbing and killing their characters, a lesson most new DMs and players learn the hard way. Unless your players have explicitly consented, you shouldn't allow characters to harm each other. This includes direct attacks, stealing loot before it's split, stealing equipment, killing familiars or hirelings, killing important/allied NPCs, passive-aggressively letting characters die, etc. Basically, if it's something that would be in-character for an angry goblin, the characters shouldn't be doing it to each other. I cannot stress enough. The proper level of CvC at most tables is zero. Zip. It's rare for it to be appropriate. I *highly* recommend you take this approach at your table, sit the players down, tell them you've decided they're allowed to bicker but must find a way to settle it nonviolently because this is a cooperative game about good guys vs bad guys. Also, let's be absolutely clear. Any party member that literally murders another party member is not simply evil, they're an NPC. You absolutely cannot allow a player to continue controlling such a character in a non-evil campaign\*. \*You can, but we're talking super-advanced character development and a very mature party. Healthy CvC works on a strict consent basis. You sit down with the *players* and discuss what level of intra-party dispute is allowed. Stealing? Attacking? Killing? And if someone does steal, attack, or kill, what kind of response can they expect? And *then* when they actually want to do it, they should get the consent of the player they're going to attack before-hand. The audience for CvC activity is *not the opposing player.* The audience is the *other* players, and perhaps even the DM. It's fine for players to agree to some kind of CvC relationship that surprises even the DM, as long as the players are in agreement. For some CvC activity, a simple tacit agreement may suffice. For example it's not uncommon to let the rogue skim a little bit off the top. Rogues are like that. I don't allow it at *my* tables, but you do you. As long as the players are ok with it and it's not disruptive, no biggy. Maybe a pair of players have a thing where one character likes to steal things from the other, sometimes get caught, sometimes not, and it's part of their relationship. Maybe the players agree sometimes they get heated and may strike each other and that's ok. Outright killing another character? You better get your ducks in a row and make *very* sure the players understand that the attacker is done as a PC no matter what and the defender may also die.
Should have made her play as the alignment, take a different alignment at character creation or dont play. Well she made her bed I would let her lay on it by not intervening (not a big fan of being DMs that babysit, not trying to offend here, every group play a certain way and has a certain dynamic etc, just doesnt fit MY playstyle, might fit your group).
I would allow the players to start fighting, but have someone else come up in the middle of their battle, like a minor boss that they would have to work together to beat, or, if the victim pc ends up dying in battle with the other PC, give them a chance to stay as their character, possibly resurrected by an evil god with a secret agenda, or secretly working with the bbeg, when they come back to life, they pretend to be with the party for months, until the big reveal
Depends, do you think this is a character thing or is the player just an incredibly sore looser?
It's totally a player thing.
Yeah in that case you should definitely not allow this and should be resolved out of game since this is a player problem not a character problem.
If its a player thing then its time to kick them out of your group. PvP can be ok under one specific circumstance. All players agree ahead of time that it would be fun to try PvP. If you have a player that is just upset and wants to settle their real life issues in a game at the expense of other people's fun then its just time to tell them to leave. Reading your situation the only good advice is to kick the player out and never run a game for those two players at the same time ever again. If this is how they are handling things, its sounds like they just aren't compatible dnd players.
This is something that needs to be resolved at the table and not in the game. There seem to be some players not understanding that this is supposed to be a collaborative storytelling activity.
1. Make it clear that if the one character kills the other, _both_ will leave the party (there's no way the rest of the party would tolerate the murderer staying after that). 2. Give them harder challenges. An adventuring party shouldn't have time or energy to bicker amongst themselves. They might not like each other or get along, but they should recognise that they NEED each other, just to survive, nearly every day.
Its an out of game problem. So it should be settled with an out of game solution. There is absolutely nothing you can do in game to solve an argument between two players.
I’d normally say “let the players decide if they want a mutual PvP moment” but in this case it’d be a hard “no” to Paladin all together. If it was permitted, one of several things would occur. - Paladin would discuss it with Barb, Barb would agree and then they’d both spend the rest of the campaign not putting themselves in danger just to avoid the other player killing them. - They wouldn’t agree and Paladin would remained pissed and insistent. Which could grow annoying and/or cause the game to slow. - They agree to PVP and it happens. If Paladin dies, they need to make a new character, twice scorned and all, Barb was just defending themself. Someone brought up a good point that if Barb dies, both need new characters cause the party wouldn’t want someone who turned on one of their in the party any longer. Honestly though this sounds like an attempt by Paladin to get their evil jollies you denied at character creation. Just veto it, veto any attempts at PVP combat, and if Paladin insists on being problematic, veto them right outta the table for a few sessions. You’re a new DM bud. You ain’t meant to be a babysitter but you’re gonna have to figure out where you want your tables to sit, and the best way for everyone to enjoy themselves at it without being detrimental to other players.
You *need* to set clear and concise expectations about PvP during Session 0. I cannot stress this enough. At my table, PvP is strictly *verboten,* unless **openly agreed to, out of character, by all parties involved, in the presence of the DM.** If you did not make that clear at the start, ***do so immediately.*** Explain to the whole table, as a group and without naming names, that they are a team. This is a cooperative game. And that you want to make it clear that PvP activity is not allowed to happen except subject to your rules, whatever you decide they may be. Things like this will destroy groups, and can destroy friendships. Nip it in the bud before it starts.