I recall the time I played "In Darkness, Light". To avoid spoilers I was playing a PC with a less than popular Secret Society that a Key NPC was considering supporting. Every other PC at the table supported the establishment position. Eventually, the strength of my position was coming through and it was apparent that I was going to "win" the argument. Suddenly, the Caidian decides to slip her dagger into my PC's rib cage with murderous precision. I'm down for the count, and out of the discussion. Naturally the Cadian wins the discussion.
I get the impression that this kind of conflict at the table would not be welcomed at a randomly selected table of players. True. If the ONLY information I had about the game I'd be here to rant. But this occurred at a game table of personal, well respected friends, some of whom I've played with for years. Plus the dagger was slipped in with a friendly laugh and chuckle. It is my fondest memory of Arcanicon, and one of my fondest gaming experiences ever. If I didn't know the other players; if I didn't have an established relationship with the other players; and if it the blade was drawn out of player anger, as apposed to PC anger, then I would have had a different reaction.
There is however another kind of conflict at the table that concerns me. Specifically it relates to "Social Flaws". Be it a named flaw such as Blood Thirsty, Code of Honor, Heretic, or even an unspoken flaw such as Mourner's Membership, or Elemental Worship in a Mother Church Centered game.
I have run into players to make these PC choices without fully thinking through and accepting the ramifications. If you take code of honor, it is the nature of the game that a party may force you to break your code and kill a prisoner. If you take Blood Thirsty you may end up killing a captive you need to keep. If as a player you are unwilling to accept the in game consequences for these choices, then conflict can turn personal. When it turns personal it quickly turns ugly.
Why not include in the new Campaign Guide a section on social flaws? Let players with a social flaw spend a fate point to auto succeed on a Mettle Stand Firm check to hold their tongue in the case of Code of Honor, or stave their hand in the case of Blood Thirsty? Or other social flaws when at the GM's when the conflict raised by these flaws is disruptive? So also the player with Code of Honor, or Blood Thirsty could add the Addiction Flaw or the Haunted by Nightmares flaw instead of the fate point if the player wants an RP hook instead. Heretic's should be able to spend favors to avoid major consequences, relegating the situation to a "Notice of....X" disfavor. There may be other flaws that are appropriate to take depending on the situation. Perhaps spending a fate point is too light a solution and a permanent loss of fate is better. But my point is to give players and GM's a known mechanical way to diffuse the situation should it arise. That way the conflict is limited to the PC level, and not the personal level.