In my last Pathfinder session, one of the PCs was hit by a confusion spell from an unseen enemy and began attacking the rest of the party. As it turned out, this PC had only joined the existing group in the previous session under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Given the situation (and numerous failed Sense Motive checks) it wasn’t a stretch for the PCs to feel that they were betrayed. They descended on her like frenzied dogs and the player was soon creating a new character.
I’m normally not a fan of intra-party armed conflict unless the situation really calls for it. Nothing destroys a good adventure like a player overreacting to some slight and forcing the whole party into a bloody royal rumble. Usually, I’ll order the affected players to calmly settle their differences or walk their PCs off into the sunset and bring in new characters (the above scenario was a special case, especially given that it was during a combat scene).
This got my Gnomish juices flowing a bit. Normally, there’s an unspoken rule that the PCs will follow the adventure. Usually, the intra-party troubles come from a minority (one or two players) that want to deviate from the adventure. This naturally puts the GM on the side of the majority. What if, however, circumstances actually put the GM on the side of the minority? Should he insist that the majority be recast, or should he still side with the majority in such a case?
Today’s hot button is this: The party gets into a dispute and you side with the minority. Should you demand that the majority be recast, or should you accept majority rule and ask the minority to make more compatible PCs? Do the facts matter in your position?