Certainly, and I feel like it’s okay too for characters to develop in divergent ways. In my current campaign my character has definitely become more good-hearted as the story has developed and he tries to do the right thing, while my compatriots generally maintain their murder-hobo lifestyle. Perhaps the most defining moment for my character was in the very first session, when my party was attacked by a direwolf. It became clear to us in the midst of combat that direwolf was charmed by someone else, and I managed to dispel it. I wanted us to stop and let the direwolf free since it had done nothing wrong, but my compatriots disagreed and continued the fight to its conclusion (also turns out the direwolf was pregnant so I rescued the two pups and have them in a stable while were out adventuring, and I care deeply for them)!

This single moment has been a defining characteristic of how I play my character. My DM gave me a magic item that lets me cast Warding on people (basically I can take damage on their behalf), and just before our last session ended I used it on a monster that transformed into a wounded human when we beat it because I don’t want the same thing to happen again. Am I the minority of my group in wanting to hear her out? Past experience would seem to indicate so. Could she be tricking us? Absolutely! But, and I know this is the blanket excuse but it’s really true for me, “that is what my character would do.”

If that puts them in a position they feel the need to fight me, they have every right! My character wouldn’t attack my friends either, so it’d be pretty one-sided; basically they would damage me until I go down, Warding drops, and they could do whatever they wanted, but that would be a dealbreaker for my character. I would probably leave the party and come back with a new character who maybe has some more similar values! Personally, we didn’t discuss non-cooperation in my group’s session zero, and since the story has developed in this way that it might be relevant, I can see how a discussion can be helpful!

So while I get where this advice is coming from, and I agree with it on principle, I don’t think we should discount inter-party conflict. It makes parties feel compelling and real, and thinking about these types of disagreements can make people better RPers and also lead to interesting problem solving.

Of course, communication is important. I guess what I’m saying is sometimes on-table problems don’t warrant off-table solutions? For example, the Barbarian who “has no patience” and attacks someone the party is negotiating with. Instead of rationalizing why the Barbarian actually would have patience for the sake of the group dynamic, try rationalizing why the Barbarian might really not have patience in this situation, like with a compelling RP or backstory reason, like the person you are negotiating with has betrayed the group once before or the Barbarian was cursed by some entity that makes him extremely quick to anger. At this point, what you once thought was a problem that warranted an off-table discussion about cooperation now becomes a new obstacle the part has to deal with, the same as any other combat encounter, social encounter, or puzzle!

And of course, like all things, this too has its limits. If the individual playing a Barbarian can’t come up with a compelling and rational reason for his/her non-cooperation (or rather, he/she just doesn’t want to), then yeah, an off-table discussion needs to happen about that player’s behavior.