Stomping On Egg Shells

It is 4 am and I can't sleep. Perhaps I am still reeling from the flagrant stomping upon the paladin's egg shells that occurred earlier this evening in session #40.

I just finished this article/discussion thread regarding the psychology of a paladin. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=662646

I wonder... if the rogue were to read it, would it help understand why Slyl's actions were perceived to be so horrible in the eyes of the paladin!? Indeed, there was no walking on egg shells this past evening — just stomping!

One more thought: It is true that our SOV group values rp and character development. To this end, as a DM I will insist that the Slyl v. Animosus conflict be either a) continued peacefully or b) resolved violently but in both cases with a sense of drama. That is, resignations of characters in favor of new ones will not be accepted at this time.

We have a classic conflict within the party, a conflict that has gone on as long as D&D has been played. The eternal question of whether the 'rogue-ish' character and the paladin can get along in the same group.

Here is a short recap: A formerly mute rogue from Waterdeep slips into the CoLD as a chartered member (sessions 1-18). Various interactions actually prompt the paladin to seek knowledge of the triadic way—a difficult path that also would increase the capacity of the paladin to tollerate the rogue (sessions 18-31). After re-dedicating himself to three gods, the paladin returns to the group and discusses beliefs with the rogue in-depth and reach an understanding (session 28). In the mean time, the rogue's mental illness was removed by a special ring of nine lives from Raven's Bluff (session 15). Above board, nobody knows the true purpose the rogue has for wanting to be a part of a company of heroes, however, in-game the rogue says his goals are in-line with the party and he is accepted as a signed chartered member (session 18). Ironically, while the paladin was learning to become more tolerant to creatures such as the rogue he missed the opportunity to become a signed charter member in the eyes of the law.

In the end—we shall see if this ends with more stomping on egg shells and the ultimate demise of one or both these beloved characters. What remains important for the rogue is that he remember the progress made with this company, remember the events and discussions that have defined his role with this company, and remember his relationship with the paladin has been formed in the context of the story the players are telling together. What remains important for the paladin is that he throw any hopes of consistency out the window, for the rogue has proven himself to be wildly chaotic.

DM's bottom line: the only conflict I support is between characters not between players. Finally, the timing of Slyl's actions did indeed have consequences: 1) the paladin in the context of our story is completely righteous in his actions 2) the rogue was foolish to choose this time and setting to make good on this promise/threat to Pavel.