With respect to intra-party conflict, that scenario is specific enough to cover separately. My comments are rooted in DnD, and would not apply as well to games like Paranoia, for instance, or many of the World of Darkness games, which seem to harvest player conflict as a plot engine, and which don't use morale absolutes as game architecture.
For D&D, I make sure the party is compatible from the start. I don't allow evil characters, and I make sure the background narrative supports the idea of this group adventuring together. I find it frustrating how so many players strive for "realism" in their game mechanics, but yet totally ignore the notion of working together to create narrative plausibility for their adventuring group. As the one person with the bird's eye view, it is the DM's responsibility to ensure that the seeds of plot-killing distractions of that magnitude are not sewn throughout the DNA of the campaign. Such conflicts are always less interesting to play than the exterior storyline, and always end up distracting from it while hogging spotlight for only a portion of the group.
Furthermore, for the laissez-faire purists, it seems that metagame sensibilities interfere with the player-conflict narrative, because the social expectation demands that the players at the table work together - whereas the in game conflict might require two players to be mortal enemies. How can anyone be satisfied in such a situation? The Paladin must constantly work to invent excuses to continue participating in the activity, all of which have the end effect of making the player complicit in turning his character into an oblivious idiot. Meanwhile the "evil character" player must work just as hard to find an excuse to travel with the party, when its heroic goals are obviously not the same as his own.
At some point, things have to come to a head due to the pressure or desire to "role-play" and deal with the scenario. The characters throw down and either one of them dies - which is REALLY stupid and not fun, and generally not desired by the party, the DM, or the "good character" player - and it can turn into a real-life social conflict at the table.
While I suppose some players might find some mildly humorous value in enacting a show of ignorance if their characters "don't realize" what's happening, I would put this on the same continuum as pretending not to know how to defeat the bad guy. Is it really that fun? Is it really that funny?
To sum, I'd echo lurkinggherkin's advice - the scenario is best avoided in the first place. If it was a situation I inherited, I would have an out of game chat with the players about my fears of the situation, and invite them to conceptualize a background and character that works together.
With respect to intra-party conflict, that scenario is specific enough to cover separately. My comments are rooted in DnD, and would not apply as well to games like Paranoia, for instance, or many of the World of Darkness games, which seem to harvest player conflict as a plot engine, and which don't use morale absolutes as game architecture.
For D&D, I make sure the party is compatible from the start. I don't allow evil characters, and I make sure the background narrative supports the idea of this group adventuring together. I find it frustrating how so many players strive for "realism" in their game mechanics, but yet totally ignore the notion of working together to create narrative plausibility for their adventuring group. As the one person with the bird's eye view, it is the DM's responsibility to ensure that the seeds of plot-killing distractions of that magnitude are not sewn throughout the DNA of the campaign. Such conflicts are always less interesting to play than the exterior storyline, and always end up distracting from it while hogging spotlight for only a portion of the group.
Furthermore, for the laissez-faire purists, it seems that metagame sensibilities interfere with the player-conflict narrative, because the social expectation demands that the players at the table work together - whereas the in game conflict might require two players to be mortal enemies. How can anyone be satisfied in such a situation? The Paladin must constantly work to invent excuses to continue participating in the activity, all of which have the end effect of making the player complicit in turning his character into an oblivious idiot. Meanwhile the "evil character" player must work just as hard to find an excuse to travel with the party, when its heroic goals are obviously not the same as his own.
At some point, things have to come to a head due to the pressure or desire to "role-play" and deal with the scenario. The characters throw down and either one of them dies - which is REALLY stupid and not fun, and generally not desired by the party, the DM, or the "good character" player - and it can turn into a real-life social conflict at the table.
While I suppose some players might find some mildly humorous value in enacting a show of ignorance if their characters "don't realize" what's happening, I would put this on the same continuum as pretending not to know how to defeat the bad guy. Is it really that fun? Is it really that funny?
To sum, I'd echo lurkinggherkin's advice - the scenario is best avoided in the first place. If it was a situation I inherited, I would have an out of game chat with the players about my fears of the situation, and invite them to conceptualize a background and character that works together.