Shall I leave the party?

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey, I am interessted in your opinions,  what I should do after last nights play.


We're a lvl 14 group of 5. 2 Ghenasi, 1 Elf, 1 Halfling and me an Half-elf.
We're in a Drow-City overrun with Undead. 
We're tasked by the Drow to kill a Necromancer (in exchange for them sheltering us), and are given a Drow-Companion do guide us through the city.

Everyone but me is very distrustfull to the companion.
We happen upon a 'fort' held by some runaway slaves (a bunch of Goblins, a Troll, 2 Minotaurs). They attack us on sight.
Two of our party-members have been slaves themselves (held in Thay), and the Defender suddenly has kind of a backflash and proposes to group up with the slaves against the Drow-Companion. (The foes didn't listen anyway).

We fell Troll and the Minotaurs, which don't give up, while the goblins just scratch us with their crossbows. The former-slave threatens the companion to not kill the goblins or she would be killed. She yields and moves on, while I kill 2 more goblins in passing. At that point the Defender attacks the companion and me, deceiving the rest of the group, that the companion and I where attacking him.

In the end the companion was dead and me beaten unconcious, I dropped our Leader, the Defender being badly bloodied.
That was the end of the session :D

Generally my char would trust more in her abilities to get out of the Drow-City and return to the surface on her own, than staying with these backstabbers. Common Sense says, that she probably wouldn't make it out of the underdark.
Plus: Why travel with someone that attacks companions when they disobey his wishes? 
Even if my char would live to see the daylight again ... She'd leave the party. 

Would you leave the party and create a new character or stay with them and see the task finished? Would you wait for the next long rest and slit the defenders throat?

When I say "you" in this post, I mean "your character". Remember that. 

When you sided with the Drow and killed some goblins when the defender threatened you not to, he no longer saw you as part of the group. 

When you didn't surrender but chose to fight the group when the defender duped them, they also didn't see you as part of the group anymore.

I'd be surprised if they didn't kill you or kick you out of the group immediately at the start of the next session. I mean, you call them backstabbers, but you were the one who first went against their wishes and then started fighting them. 

If they choose to be merciful, I'd be very thankful for that. I'd either try to get on their good side again, or promise to leave and never show my face again (thereby leaving the party, but that's no fun). 

What I wouldn't do is slit the defender's throat. That's what insane and evil characters do, which I assume you're not. Not to mention that this action will bring about a f*ckton of out-of-game grief, which no-one wants.
Before doing anything, I strongly recommend the group talk out of game about accepting and adding onto others' ideas rather than blocking them. That would have allowed the group to navigate these tricky waters. Also, I would establish a PVP policy at the table: The results of attacks against other characters are determined by the target of those attacks - no rolls.

I'm not sure whether the DM or a player was playing the companion, but it looks like you blocked the defender player's ideas by attacking the goblins. (Why?) The companion character player was building on the offer of the defender player to give justification to his action (he said don't attack goblins because we want to team up and have them kill companion, companion obliged by attacking goblins giving him pretext). You could have easily gone with what the defender player wanted, provided it didn't contradict previously established fiction (like you having said the companion was your blood brother or something). You could have then added onto that offer if you needed to make it interesting for you as well as the defender (or rest of group for that matter).

This is not to say the defender player handled it well either. He's dealing with an out-of-game problem (player-to-player blocking) with an in-game method (attacking your character). Some people for reasons I will never understand thinks that's a good idea. As you can see, it just escalates things and puts people in awkward positions.

Now that you understand the underlying problem, you can come to a solution. As players, you can discuss how it might be an interesting opportunity for the characters to try and mend the physical and emotional wounds that this incident have caused. Or you can decide it's better for your character to wander off into the sunset, perhaps returning someday as an NPC or villain under the DM's control. Then you can discuss how to onboard a new character. The point is, this should be discussed out-of-game and the results of that discussion then played out in-game. And going forward, you can all work on supporting each others ideas with acceptance and additions rather than blocking them.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

If they don't kill off your PC in his sleep, be thankful. If you are actually left alive, first thing you do when your PC wakes up is run, because they will probably kill you when they wake up. You pulled a dick move, not them. Bad idea.
RIP George! 4-21-11 RIP Abie! 1-2-13
Funny Forum Quotes
[quote author=82733368 post=532127449]
58115148 wrote:
"You notice a large piece of mold clinging to your toothbrush. What do you do?" "I cast Fireball." "I run like hell!
63797881 wrote:
The standard d4 is somewhat (SOMEWHAT) rounded on the top, the older models are even flat. The Lego is shaped in such a way that in an emergency, you can use one as a makeshift surgical knife.
147742801 wrote:
57457938 wrote:
My wife asked me if her pants made her look fat. What do you think I said?
Wife: Do these pants make me look fat? RedSiegfried: I just killed a bunch of orc women and children.
63797881 wrote:
82733368 wrote:
28.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character (Monk or otherwise) does not require my character to be completely shitfaced, no matter what the name (and fun interpretation) implies.
29.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character does not require ME to be completely tanked, no matter how "in-character" I want to be..

never just leave the game, try to stay true to your Role Playing as you can, but bend it a little when it come to the "Well my chr would just quit" moments. This way you’re not forced to make new characters every time you disagree with your party.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/1.jpg)


never just leave the game, try to stay true to your Role Playing as you can, but bend it a little when it come to the "Well my chr would just quit" moments. This way you’re not forced to make new characters every time you disagree with your party.


Agreed. There's usually more than one plausible course of action any character "would" take.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

You didn't trust your companion enough to even ask WHY he didn't want you to kill the goblin? Or was it that you didn't respect your companion enough to hear him out, or at least attempt a reasonable explanation as to why it would be better to 'finish the job'.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
I suppose I'm seeing this situation a bit differently than some of the other posters here.

So your fellow characters didn't trust the companion NPC.  You did, the reasons for mistrust and trust are irrelevant.

The actions however were not.

The Defender character demands that you stop attacking the goblins.  The companion did, you didn't.  Your reason why you did is important but most likely not really my issue.

Defender attacks you and the NPC stating that you had attacked him.  Going to go out on a limb here, the Defender clearly wanted the NPC gone.  It almost seems as if the Defender used the goblins to attempt to goad the NPC into attacking them so he could attack the NPC.  NPC doesn't play ball so the Defender attacks both of you anyway.  

Other characters joined with the Defender and attack you. Clearly they could have killed you and didn't but also they clearly wanted the NPC dead or else they would have beaten them unconcious too.  I'm not sure without a really good skill check the Defender could dupe the rest of the party into beleiving that you and the NPC attacked him.

If the you, the NPC and the Defender were in another room then that could be how but that also means the Defender wasn't defending the majority of the party.  Also the party could have been in on it from the beginning.  Only more info will answer that question for me.

However you attacked the rest of the party, surrendering would have been a way better move.  You could have accused the Defender a liar, you could have pointed out the damage to him couldn't have come from you due to weapon damage and location.  But you insisted on fighting back and dropped the Leader while bloodied the Defender.

Honestly I feel that there is stuff missing from this story. 

Were you in the wrong here? Well you weren't until you attacked your fellow party members.    If they wanted your character dead they would have done so.  The issue now is about trust.  If the Defender was willing to go so far as to lie to the entire party about what happend to get his way then most likely the Defender will do it again.  Even still you showed how far you were willing to go to drop one player and almost dropped another one.

If you're good at bluffing you could tell the party the NPC had somehow charmed you.  At this moment your actions are more damaging and obvious than the Defenders.

Might want to talk to the DM about the situation and then talk to your fellow players.





I'm not sure without a really good skill check the Defender could dupe the rest of the party into beleiving that you and the NPC attacked him.

...

If you're good at bluffing you could tell the party the NPC had somehow charmed you.  At this moment your actions are more damaging and obvious than the Defenders.



Although it looks as though pvp with rolls is acceptable in this group (or at least tolerated to some extent), it should probably be mentioned that social skills like Bluff and Intimidate don't actually work on PCs unless the target agrees to it. All the more reason to use that as precedent for allowing any attempt against another PC to be determined by the target rather than the dice.

Might want to talk to the DM about the situation and then talk to your fellow players.



Good advice.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Before doing anything, I strongly recommend the group talk out of game about accepting and adding onto others' ideas rather than blocking them. That would have allowed the group to navigate these tricky waters. Also, I would establish a PVP policy at the table: The results of attacks against other characters are determined by the target of those attacks - no rolls.

I'm not sure whether the DM or a player was playing the companion, but it looks like you blocked the defender player's ideas by attacking the goblins. (Why?) The companion character player was building on the offer of the defender player to give justification to his action (he said don't attack goblins because we want to team up and have them kill companion, companion obliged by attacking goblins giving him pretext). You could have easily gone with what the defender player wanted, provided it didn't contradict previously established fiction (like you having said the companion was your blood brother or something). You could have then added onto that offer if you needed to make it interesting for you as well as the defender (or rest of group for that matter).

This is not to say the defender player handled it well either. He's dealing with an out-of-game problem (player-to-player blocking) with an in-game method (attacking your character). Some people for reasons I will never understand thinks that's a good idea. As you can see, it just escalates things and puts people in awkward positions.

Now that you understand the underlying problem, you can come to a solution. As players, you can discuss how it might be an interesting opportunity for the characters to try and mend the physical and emotional wounds that this incident have caused. Or you can decide it's better for your character to wander off into the sunset, perhaps returning someday as an NPC or villain under the DM's control. Then you can discuss how to onboard a new character. The point is, this should be discussed out-of-game and the results of that discussion then played out in-game. And going forward, you can all work on supporting each others ideas with acceptance and additions rather than blocking them.

You said: Some people for reasons I will never understand thinks that's a good idea. As you can see, it just escalates things and puts people in awkward positions.

I see your point, sort of.

In game method:
P1: I say don't kill the goblin, he's just a poor slave. What do ya do? Ya murdered him. I guess our characters will either fight it out or go our separate ways. 

P2: Bring it on!
(roll dice and resolve situation)

Out of game method:
P1: You just had to do it, didn't you, Harold? You have no respect for anything I have to say. I don't know why I play this stupid game with you... or anything, for that matter. You don't listen to me... you don't respect me... you don't...

P2: I've put up with you for 15 years, Margaret! 15 Years! And you're getting this mad over a game?... a GAME!?!

P1: SHUT UP! I'M TALKING! I WAN'T A DIVORCE, HAROLD!

P2: Now there it is! Ya been working late. Is that it? Just a friend? Is that it?

P1: Don't, Harold, don't... the kids...

P2: Ain't mine and you know it, Margaret. I've always known, Margie. Always. Always.

P1: Harold... what are you... Harold.... HAROLD!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Fade to Black as campaign ends.

Woody Allen, directing?
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Your in-game method example is actually an out-of-game discussion. Because the players have discussed and negotiated what their characters would do to resolve the situation before simply doing it. If they both agreed, then that's fine, play on.

I wonder if this is where you guys are getting confused actually. 

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I think that people sometimes forget that D&D is a social activity, and that the most important outcome is for everyone to have fun.  The idea that you might leave the group and miss out on a social activity because of something that happened in game (if I'm reading your post correctly) seems extreme.

I don't think the DM necessarily needs to be involved in this discussion - you just need to sit down as players and figure out how you progress the situation in a way that you'll all enjoy.
I just realized that I didn't word my post in the right way, and left some in-game dialogue out, but thanks to all for your input.

What I described was just in-game. There are no player-to-player problems and everything is good natured. Of course the defender-players action put's me into a hard place, and toward a decission I don't like, but that doesn't change the way we would play in the future.

The actions taken were all in-character.
The defenders-character acting on his disdain for slavery.
My character being angry and not stoping to attack someone that attacks him.
The defender and the leader being ghenasi talked about freeing the slaves in their own language (probably acting on instinct during battle).
The elfen-striker hating the drow and seeing his chance to attack the drow-companion.
Me not relenting to the threat of a party-member, because I am hard to intimitade.

And than the tension suddenly exploded. The drow-companion (played out by the DM) activated its cloud of darkness when being attacked by the defender, obscuring the other characters vision. (We three were standing adjacent to each other. ) My character yelling "What the #*?!%$ are you doing?" (without adding the defenders name it could mean either the companion or the defender). The defender to yell "They are attacking me. Help me." (which was true but we only did in selfdefense).

Well, it was fun to play this scene

Anyway, what I was interessted in, was your opinion about my character leaving the party. Resulting in me having to create a character, and losing a character I took quite some time to develop. Or having the character stay with the group - in-game reason being, that she'd probably wouldn't make it out of the underdark alive. Staying would strain the in-party-relations longtime and definatly my concept of my character to say the least. But she'd start to hate the defender for the problems he caused her... she is someone that holds a grudge against people that hurt her ;)



Everyone but me is very distrustfull to the companion.
We happen upon a 'fort' held by some runaway slaves (a bunch of Goblins, a Troll, 2 Minotaurs). They attack us on sight.
Two of our party-members have been slaves themselves (held in Thay), and the Defender suddenly has kind of a backflash and proposes to group up with the slaves against the Drow-Companion. (The foes didn't listen anyway).

We fell Troll and the Minotaurs, which don't give up, while the goblins just scratch us with their crossbows. The former-slave threatens the companion to not kill the goblins or she would be killed. She yields and moves on, while I kill 2 more goblins in passing. At that point the Defender attacks the companion and me, deceiving the rest of the group, that the companion and I where attacking him.




OK, for the "yes, and..." folks, the slaves weren't playing ball.  The slaves attacked on sight.  So, just stop with the "oh you were blocking someone's idea" crap.  The foes din't join with them against the drow companion, so the OP didn't block anything.

The defender picks the fight.  Not the OP, the defender.  The defender here is clearly the person in the wrong.  The OP defended himself, nothing less.  The defender attacked first, the defender lied about it, and the rest of the party went along.  I don't see a single thing that the OP did wrong.

Even continuing to kill the goblins...guess what?  If someone is shooting a crossbow at me, I will be returning fire.  I will /always/ put the threat down, hard.  if they aren't shooting, then there is the opportunity to negotiate.  Once the enemy starts negotiating with steel, I will certainly conclude those negotiations for them.  I can't fault the player for /anything/ he did short of not invoking the 4e rule that says a player has to agree to being attacked.  Once it became clear that the DM was letting things get crazy, I'd have likely declined to allow the defender to attack me.

I think the DM let things get way out of control, but the OP wasn't in the wrong, the defender and the rest of the party were.

If your character survives, I'd definitely be leaving the party once you get back to the surface for role play reasons if nothing else.  There's no way I could see any character I make being OK with the group turning on him.  I'd never be able to trust them with my back again.


Anyway, what I was interested in, was your opinion about my character leaving the party. Resulting in me having to create a character, and losing a character I took quite some time to develop. Or having the character stay with the group - in-game reason being, that she'd probably wouldn't make it out of the underdark alive. Staying would strain the in-party-relations longtime and definatly my concept of my character to say the least. But she'd start to hate the defender for the problems he caused her... she is someone that holds a grudge against people that hurt her ;)


Depends, do you and the rest of group enjoy dealing with constant in-party tension and paranoia? If you do, by all means, stay. If you don't, then leave.

I can't decide what your character would do, since it's, well, your character. I can however advice you on what you should do to get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of your game.
OK, for the "yes, and..." folks, the slaves weren't playing ball.  The slaves attacked on sight.  So, just stop with the "oh you were blocking someone's idea" crap.  The foes din't join with them against the drow companion, so the OP didn't block anything.



The OP did say, "The goblin just scratch us with with their crossbows," which indicates a distinct lack of a threat from them. How hard would it have been for the OP to simply ignore them? Or just knock them out instead of kill them? Or ask for clarification from the defender on what to do? Not hard at all. It's a block.

The defender picks the fight.  Not the OP, the defender.  The defender here is clearly the person in the wrong.  The OP defended himself, nothing less.  The defender attacked first, the defender lied about it, and the rest of the party went along.  I don't see a single thing that the OP did wrong.



Then it's good that I said, "This is not to say the defender player handled it well either." They're both in the wrong. The OP for blocking; the Defender for attacking.

Even continuing to kill the goblins...guess what?  If someone is shooting a crossbow at me, I will be returning fire.  I will /always/ put the threat down, hard.  if they aren't shooting, then there is the opportunity to negotiate.  Once the enemy starts negotiating with steel, I will certainly conclude those negotiations for them.



And, regardless of what you think about the benefits of not blocking a fellow player's ideas, you'd still be blocking them. That kind of play leads to certain outcomes. If the forums are to be believed, that outcome is frequently pvp or other forms of passive aggression. You can avoid those conflicts so, so easily by not blocking.

I can't fault the player for /anything/ he did short of not invoking the 4e rule that says a player has to agree to being attacked. Once it became clear that the DM was letting things get crazy, I'd have likely declined to allow the defender to attack me.



Is that an actual rule? Do you know what book and page? I thought it was always a house rule (and a good one). If it's official, that'd be sweet and I'd like to see it.

I think the DM let things get way out of control, but the OP wasn't in the wrong, the defender and the rest of the party were.



If the defender attempted to get the goblin's support and the DM didn't at least ask for a roll, then the DM was blocking, too. That'd mean the DM, OP, and defender were all in the wrong.

If your character survives, I'd definitely be leaving the party once you get back to the surface for role play reasons if nothing else.  There's no way I could see any character I make being OK with the group turning on him.  I'd never be able to trust them with my back again.



There's always a way. It just takes imagination and an out-of-game conversation to figure it out.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

But it's okay for the Defender to stab the Drow and the OP's character and only when they reacted in self defense did he call others to come beat up the two? That's not "blocking" or whatever the current phrase of the month is?
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
But it's okay for the Defender to stab the Drow and the OP's character and only when they reacted in self defense did he call others to come beat up the two? That's not "blocking" or whatever the current phrase of the month is?



Because the "yes and..." crew always want to blame someone other then the usual cause of the problem.


I can't fault the player for /anything/ he did short of not invoking the 4e rule that says a player has to agree to being attacked. Once it became clear that the DM was letting things get crazy, I'd have likely declined to allow the defender to attack me.



Is that an actual rule? Do you know what book and page? I thought it was always a house rule (and a good one). If it's official, that'd be sweet and I'd like to see it.




Well, I could have sworn it was in the DMG or PHB, but I'll be buggered if I can find it.  I'll mark that one up to talking out my behind, because I can't find it now.
But it's okay for the Defender to stab the Drow and the OP's character and only when they reacted in self defense did he call others to come beat up the two? That's not "blocking" or whatever the current phrase of the month is?



You must have missed the part where I mentioned that the defender was in the wrong, too. Twice.

Because the "yes and..." crew always want to blame someone other then the usual cause of the problem.



There is no singular cause of this problem. The OP blocked. The defender responded with an in-game solution to an out-of-game problem. Both are wrong. Possibly even the DM if he didn't allow a check to discern the goblins' participation. Case closed.

Well, I could have sworn it was in the DMG or PHB, but I'll be buggered if I can find it.  I'll mark that one up to talking out my behind, because I can't find it now.



It's a good rule, official or no.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Since they started killing the goblins first, the defender blocked the OP's idea of just killing off the Goblins and working with the NPC.
Honestly I don't see anyone blocking another. It was a clash of sentiments.
My character was sticking to the quest and to her "you won't like me when I am angry*"-stance.
The Defender with his wish to not slaughter the goblins.
The Ranger with his "I'll wait my chance to make a pin-cushion out of that drow"

The DM informed the Defender that the former slaves wouldn't group up with us.
Once the Drow-Companion was bloodied the DM informed me, that the party was doomed if the companion was to get away now.

If the Drow-companion and my char would have succeeded and made the rest of the party yield (it would have been an astonishing feat that would have make bards create songs and operas about), then the defender-player would be in my position


(*angry is a term do be defined on a moment to moment base and granted to exist most of the times)
@crzyhawk: Maybe, if that was established. Still means blocking was going on which was the source of this issue, why intraparty violence broke out, and why the OP's character may have to leave the party if they can't come up with a reason for the character to stick around. It cascades and it's very common in D&D. Many people in my experience don't even know they're doing it until it turns into a problem.

@mexalen: "Blocking" is exactly what that "clash of sentiments" is. It's a form of disagreement, however direct or indirect, between players. The players could have chosen to back each other's plays, creating fictional reasons why they could do so rather than say why they could not do so. (This goes for the DM too.) It's hard to imagine intraparty violence breaking out if you had all simply went along with each other's ideas. This is the solution to the underlying problem and it's also the solution to your question: "Shall I leave the party?" The answer is whatever you want it to be, but what you fear ultimately is further blocking (maybe even from yourself as you mention a lot of reasons why you shouldn't stay with the party even though ostensibly you want to keep the PC). You want to keep playing a character you've put some time and thought into and that's fair. It's better if everyone simply accept your idea that your character is staying with the party and then you guys work together to determine how that can work rather than why it can't.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Your in-game method example is actually an out-of-game discussion. Because the players have discussed and negotiated what their characters would do to resolve the situation before simply doing it. If they both agreed, then that's fine, play on.

I wonder if this is where you guys are getting confused actually. 

As much as I like to rib Iserith about it, it really is a good idea overall to seek to find an alternative to PVP by out-of-game discussion. You may not find one, but at least it can be determined if all the players agree that the characters would indeed be willing to hash it out violently. Unless the party is particularly bloodthirsty, you'd think they would try to work it out without killing an old friend. If all players agree that the characters are no longer viable travelling partners, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to kill one another.

Some options you have (with DM support) are (off the top of my head):
Play one of the slaves... the minotaur, maybe. Work with the DM. Maybe one of the slaves is a sorcerer/doppleganger/shapeshifter of some sort and would make a good temporary or longer term PC to join the party. Since the players are amicable, maybe you could have a two-party system. You could play your character and the other players could play a drow party intending on getting you all out of there. Just because the characters have something in common with the slave monsters doesn't mean the escaped slave monsters are allies, either. They might use the party only to turn on them once they're used up. Your character could come in and help your old allies. Irony would be if you find out that the drow that you trusted wasn't trustworthy and was in some way allied with the goblins and other escaped monsters. He might lead the party into a trap involving the escaped monsters and the rogue drow. This would give the players incentive to work with one another.

If you left off at the last battle the DM could throw in some sort of do-over mechanism. Not the most elegant solutions here, but they are options, at least: it was all a dream, hallucinatory mushroom dust must have gotten in the party's water supply, or you were all under a spell. All cheesy solutions, but desparate times call for desparate measures.

If you'd rather avoid the cheesiness of all that, you guys are 14th level... there has GOT to be some solution. Rather than have a dead party member on your hands, it wouldn't be out of the question to see if the DM will allow a minor do-over by ruling that the damage was subdual and giving the players a chance to catch their breath and role-play out a more amicable solution.

I can see many reasons why either side might be able to go along to get along. So they were slaves? In Thay, they learned it's a dog-eat-dog world. So what if they don't trust the drow companion? They don't have to turn his back on them, but they can play along until he messes up and reveals his game. In the meanwhile, let him be the guide until a change of plans can take place. Even though you trust the drow, at what point do you trust your long-term travelling companions more?

It doesn't  sound like there was much trust in the party to begin with... which is strange to me, considering their character level... was this their first adventure together?
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
But it's okay for the Defender to stab the Drow and the OP's character and only when they reacted in self defense did he call others to come beat up the two? That's not "blocking" or whatever the current phrase of the month is?



Because the "yes and..." crew always want to blame someone other then the usual cause of the problem.

Jargonizers, I believe, is the POM (phrase of the month).
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
@crzyhawk: Maybe, if that was established. Still means blocking was going on which was the source of this issue, why intraparty violence broke out, and why the OP's character may have to leave the party if they can't come up with a reason for the character to stick around. It cascades and it's very common in D&D. Many people in my experience don't even know they're doing it until it turns into a problem.

@mexalen: "Blocking" is exactly what that "clash of sentiments" is. It's a form of disagreement, however direct or indirect, between players. The players could have chosen to back each other's plays, creating fictional reasons why they could do so rather than say why they could not do so. (This goes for the DM too.) It's hard to imagine intraparty violence breaking out if you had all simply went along with each other's ideas. This is the solution to the underlying problem and it's also the solution to your question: "Shall I leave the party?" The answer is whatever you want it to be, but what you fear ultimately is further blocking (maybe even from yourself as you mention a lot of reasons why you shouldn't stay with the party even though ostensibly you want to keep the PC). You want to keep playing a character you've put some time and thought into and that's fair. It's better if everyone simply accept your idea that your character is staying with the party and then you guys work together to determine how that can work rather than why it can't.

Disagreement is blocking?

It is indeed difficult to imagine intraparty violence breaking out when everyone in the party is in agreement.



Sometimes it's better to leave the party. I've had characters that stuck with the party for no other reason than the stick with the party. The result was generally disastrous. Inter-party and metagame dialogue generally degenerates into a constant search for a reason to actually still be there.

"Why am I still here?" "Why am I travelling with these people?" "When we get back to town can we start a new campaign? This party is more dangerous to itself than a terrasque in heat"
"I attack you and miss. Repeatedly". "You're terribly wounded. Sorry, I didn't pray for healing spells today. Don't die on me man, blah blah blah"."What's a potato, P-precious?"
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Disagreement is blocking?



It can be and often is. Outside of another player having his character do something that contradicts existing fiction or is completely out of context, there's really no particularly good reason why the other players can't back that idea and add onto it. Often what I see is a player thinks an idea is dumb and uses the character's motivation as justification not to go along with it, shutting down and discouraging the other player. It's really the player raising the objection, not the character. In a fictional world, we can make up whatever justifications we need to have a character go along with any idea, even a dumb one. If the objecting player will simply get over himself, that is.

Of course, this breaks down if the DM has a preconceived notion as to the outcome of any given scene or a predetermined solution to a problem. If the DM is making the characters play guessing games to figure out the "correct" path to take to the victory condition, then it's a DM fail, not a player fail per se or a failure of the approach. If this is not the case and the DM is giving all ideas a fair shot, then truthfully any plan has a chance of succeeding. It's up to the dice results and context. A dumb idea that you came up with in a few seconds has just as much a chance of succeeding as a convoluted plan that took 30 minutes of pointless, frustrating blocking to devise. It calls into question why you'd really spend all that time trying to get it "right" when you could just settle on something fun, run with it, and see where it goes.

Sometimes it's better to leave the party. I've had characters that stuck with the party for no other reason than the stick with the party. The result was generally disastrous. Inter-party and metagame dialogue generally degenerates into a constant search for a reason to actually still be there.



That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking, not what the character could be thinking. Interestingly, this came up for me this week in a game in which I'm a player. My character is a minion (1 hp) who is a henchman for the party, recently joined. After a couple of sessions, one of the players who is one of two players in the group that are pretty heavy with blocking demanded to know why my character (Drunk Steve) was with the party and why his character (Hank) shouldn't just kill me in light of some errors in judgment my character made. This is what I sent to him (his questions are in bold):

1. Why shouldn't Hank kill Drunk Steve?

Drunk Steve’s bravery at the bridge shows he is not beyond redemption. Also, he’s Hank Lono’s fraternal twin brother, separated at birth, just as the Prophecy foretold!

2. What should Hank do?
Hank should look into his heart and realize that heroes aren’t born – they’re forged in the crucible of Action and Danger. And that Drunk Steve is at the beginning of his journey, just like certain other famous adventurers once were. Also, if you don’t block #1, you should protect Drunk Steve from Carric who has a murderous look in his eye. For the Prophecy says only Hank and his twin brother Steve can defeat the black wyrm Rhashaak, Guardian of Haka’torvhak. Which is right here in Q’barra!

3. Why is Drunk Steve even around?
Whatever else he may be, Drunk Steve’s a loyal henchman whose messes ultimately seem to create a net gain for the party. That must be worth something. And if you don’t block the ideas in #2, without Drunk Steve, you and your friends are destined to fall in the battle that is to come. How do I know this? Because Wildcard told me before he fell into the river and disappeared.


None of this fiction existed before I made it up on the spot in about 5 minutes. As a result of this player accepting my offers, we've now got a dramatic reveal next session that we're brothers. He's got a reason to protect me from another party member. And we've got a new adventure that the DM is working on as we speak. All it took was some collaboration and accepting ideas offered with additions. The problem was diffused right away. This is applicable to the OP's situation and will allow him to stay with the group, add to the tapestry of the fiction (possibly generating new adventures), and develop the character (and party) further.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Disagreement is blocking?



It can be and often is. Outside of another player having his character do something that contradicts existing fiction or is completely out of context, there's really no particularly good reason why the other players can't back that idea and add onto it. Often what I see is a player thinks an idea is dumb and uses the character's motivation as justification not to go along with it, shutting down and discouraging the other player. It's really the player raising the objection, not the character. In a fictional world, we can make up whatever justifications we need to have a character go along with any idea, even a dumb one. If the objecting player will simply get over himself, that is.

Of course, this breaks down if the DM has a preconceived notion as to the outcome of any given scene or a predetermined solution to a problem. If the DM is making the characters play guessing games to figure out the "correct" path to take to the victory condition, then it's a DM fail, not a player fail per se or a failure of the approach. If this is not the case and the DM is giving all ideas a fair shot, then truthfully any plan has a chance of succeeding. It's up to the dice results and context. A dumb idea that you came up with in a few seconds has just as much a chance of succeeding as a convoluted plan that took 30 minutes of pointless, frustrating blocking to devise. It calls into question why you'd really spend all that time trying to get it "right" when you could just settle on something fun, run with it, and see where it goes.

Sometimes it's better to leave the party. I've had characters that stuck with the party for no other reason than the stick with the party. The result was generally disastrous. Inter-party and metagame dialogue generally degenerates into a constant search for a reason to actually still be there.



That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking, not what the character could be thinking. Interestingly, this came up for me this week in a game in which I'm a player. My character is a minion (1 hp) who is a henchman for the party, recently joined. After a couple of sessions, one of the players who is one of two players in the group that are pretty heavy with blocking demanded to know why my character (Drunk Steve) was with the party and why his character (Hank) shouldn't just kill me in light of some errors in judgment my character made. This is what I sent to him (his questions are in bold):

1. Why shouldn't Hank kill Drunk Steve?

Drunk Steve’s bravery at the bridge shows he is not beyond redemption. Also, he’s Hank Lono’s fraternal twin brother, separated at birth, just as the Prophecy foretold!

2. What should Hank do?
Hank should look into his heart and realize that heroes aren’t born – they’re forged in the crucible of Action and Danger. And that Drunk Steve is at the beginning of his journey, just like certain other famous adventurers once were. Also, if you don’t block #1, you should protect Drunk Steve from Carric who has a murderous look in his eye. For the Prophecy says only Hank and his twin brother Steve can defeat the black wyrm Rhashaak, Guardian of Haka’torvhak. Which is right here in Q’barra!

3. Why is Drunk Steve even around?
Whatever else he may be, Drunk Steve’s a loyal henchman whose messes ultimately seem to create a net gain for the party. That must be worth something. And if you don’t block the ideas in #2, without Drunk Steve, you and your friends are destined to fall in the battle that is to come. How do I know this? Because Wildcard told me before he fell into the river and disappeared.




None of this fiction existed before I made it up on the spot in about 5 minutes. As a result of this player accepting my offers, we've now got a dramatic reveal next session that we're brothers. He's got a reason to protect me from another party member. And we've got a new adventure that the DM is working on as we speak. All it took was some collaboration and accepting ideas offered with additions. The problem was diffused right away. This is applicable to the OP's situation and will allow him to stay with the group, add to the tapestry of the fiction (possibly generating new adventures), and develop the character (and party) further.
Maybe the player getting 'blocked' could get over himself, instead?

 After all... not allowing himself to be 'blocked' is 'blocking' the other character's actions.

You can't seem to imagine a situation where two characters simply don't get along or DO get along but have mutually exclusive goals. It happens. And your only solution is that everyone should just put up with an idiot's idiocy or change their goals, motivations and behaviors because one character will cry if he doesn't get his way?
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Iserith said....That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking,

Sometimes the player is thinking... "What would my character do in this situation".

When the answer is "shove a hot poker down the offending character's throat", the player might ask, instead "Is there a plausible reason why this character might stay with this party?" The answer might be "because I don't have a hot poker handy at the moment".
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Maybe the player getting 'blocked' could get over himself, instead?

 After all... not allowing himself to be 'blocked' is 'blocking' the other character's actions.

You can't seem to imagine a situation where two characters simply don't get along or DO get along but have mutually exclusive goals. It happens. And your only solution is that everyone should just put up with an idiot's idiocy or change their goals, motivations and behaviors because one character will cry if he doesn't get his way?



No. Blocking is the issue and where the problem originates. It's not the fault of the person being blocked. It shouldn't be happening in the first place. It's akin to an improv actor on stage saying, "Let's go hit the pool!" and the other actor saying, "No, I can't swim." That's a block. It doesn't move the scene forward and shuts down the other person's ideas. That can lead to a whole host of problems that you see on these forums.

I can most definitely imagine a situation in which two characters don't get along or have opposing goals. This happens in our games all the time. But what they do is find a way to support each other's ideas in a way that everyone gets what they want and the game moves forward. They do this by saying, "Yes, and..." and avoiding blocks. Decisions are made quickly, scenes move and change, and choices matter. There are no arguments or tension or anything that spills out-of-character to become a problem. They can do all this by staying in-character, too, staying true to their goals and motivations, adding fiction wherever necessary to make it work.

I would also note, with reference to putting up with an "idiot's idiocy" that we've discussed this before, you and I, and I'm not the one who chooses to play with immature idiots. You do, admittedly so. Perhaps that's why you feel blocking is necessary. As well, in light of other discussions I've seen you engage in recently, I'm also seeing why you think blocking in necessary: You support the notion of "illusion of choice." So, of course, blocking comes perfectly natural to you. You can't use that style without blocking - it's foundational. At least I can see why you think this now, even if I don't agree with that approach.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals | Full-Contact Futbol  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs | Re-Imagining Phandelver | Three Pillars of Immersion | Seahorse Run

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Iserith said....That's an imagination fail and is really muddled with what the player is thinking,

Sometimes the player is thinking... "What would my character do in this situation".

When the answer is "shove a hot poker down the offending character's throat", the player might ask, instead "Is there a plausible reason why this character might stay with this party?" The answer might be "because I don't have a hot poker handy at the moment".



Well. I am pretty sure, I can get my hands on a hot poker somehow. I am a fire-sorcerres after all... there is probably even a poker in our bag of holding. ;)


 
Yes, you (not your character, you) should leave the party.  You're playing with somebody so selfish that they're willing to attack your character just to make the game go the way they want - and to lie to the other players about it.  And you're playing with a DM who doesn't step in and tell that player to knock it off. Leave now, don't look back.

(Note: advice not valid for Paranoia games.) 
Well, I prefer to play with a group where we can create our story, without being cuddled by the DM. We know that we can run into a party-wipe, and our characters may die from our actions, any time.
This 'incident' allows us to explore, what it means if the party is weakend, because they lose a member.
I know, that I am not going to play a new character for a little while, because it wouldn't be plausibel to just have a high-lvl character standing around the next corner. I'll join the DM in creating the next part of the story, playing NPCs, etc.

Was the defender player selfish - no doubt. But maybe it will shape his character to think twice before being rackless and rash, the next time, when another character doesn't go along with his plans.
 
In the future what recommend (and the DM needs to support this) is any player conflict be resolved without the roll of the dice.  Whether that is talking through the issue or the players narrating the outcome of any physical altercation, you will find that this is the most effect way to resolve player to player issues.  Fighting it out never ends well, especiallly in a system that is based off team work and team synergy like 4E where the fight will rarely be balanced or fair.

Also, allowing other players to pursue their ideas will cut down on this issue.  What difference would it have made had the party merely knocked the slaves unconscious rather than outright slay them?  I will agree though that the defender attacking the party is the one that crossed the line - he should have just dealt with the fact that the party (or certain members of the party) dealt killing blows after it became obvious that the slaves were not listening to reason.  You have to remmeber that the party is in a dangerous place and leaving enemies alive behind you could increase that danger significantly.
"The great epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evil as what is best in us." - Friedrich Nietzsche