D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[KarinsDad]

"You must do what works for me, but I do what I darn well please," is not an equitable social contract.

Playing is a cooperative endeavor. Everyone at the table carries some responsibility to try to work with everyone else, new to the table and old guard alike.

While what you said is true, it does not apply to his example. First come, first served. If a PC hates and kills Gnolls on sight, the person bringing in a Gnoll PC later on is the dxxk, not the first player. The first PC should kill the Gnoll PC on sight and trying to justify an exception because the Gnoll is a PC and not an NPC is poor role playing.

Edit: I just realized that you might be agreeing with him. If so, nevermind.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"You must do what works for me, but I do what I darn well please," is not an equitable social contract.

Right. Creating a character that doesn't fit into the game, and wanting everyone else to conform around you, is a pretty selfish move. It's not a social contract that you'll get many people to sign.

 

[Shiroiken]

Should i allow my PC's to kill another PC just because "he wasn't here"?

I would not say no because PvP is bad. PvP is a playstyle that not everyone enjoys, but can be fantastic if everyone can act like reasonable adults (i.e. not take things personally).

I would say no because this is a really stupid reason. The player is just trying to stir up trouble with the group. I would not play with such players, and I definitely won't allow them in my game.

I would also say no because the player is not present. If the player had a legitimate beef with a PC, and you allowed PvP, the player should be allowed to be present to argue his case. This prevents bad feelings all the way around.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

As we were trecking to the seer
I killed a PC who wasn't here.
I killed another just today,
Do I want the players to stay away?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

nope.... still just a sheet of paper, with no ability to do anything on it's own. Every bit of 'life' given the character, from what it does to what it says, to how it thinks comes from the player not the character... there for any excuse that starts with "Well my character would" ends with "Then it's your fault for making the character think that way..."

You are pretending that no character can be created, outside of the player's ability to interpret it. You are removing the concept of territory, by suggesting that the map is the only thing that matters. That's not how the brain works. There must be a territory upon which we base our map, even if that territory only exists in our collective imagination.

When you play a role, you imagine yourself in the position of the character. You imagine yourself as that character in that same situation, and whatever you decide you would do, that is how you know what the character would do.

Someone else could try to play the same role, though. (Imagine that you're sick that week, so your friend takes over your character.) She could imagine herself as that character in that situation, and decide what the character would do. She might decide that the character does the same thing that you would have decided, had you been there, or she might decide that it does something else. This is possible because the character exists outside of our playing it. It is a real part of that world, by mutual consensus. If there wasn't a territory of the character, upon which she could base her map, then it would be impossible for her to play that character. If she decided to do something which is not a reasonable interpretation of what that character would do, then she would be playing the role poorly.

Given that this is a role-playing game, poor role-playing should be avoided when possible.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You are pretending that no character can be created, outside of the player's ability to interpret it. You are removing the concept of territory, by suggesting that the map is the only thing that matters. That's not how the brain works. There must be a territory upon which we base our map, even if that territory only exists in our collective imagination.

When you play a role, you imagine yourself in the position of the character. You imagine yourself as that character in that same situation, and whatever you decide you would do, that is how you know what the character would do.

Someone else could try to play the same role, though. (Imagine that you're sick that week, so your friend takes over your character.) She could imagine herself as that character in that situation, and decide what the character would do. She might decide that the character does the same thing that you would have decided, had you been there, or she might decide that it does something else. This is possible because the character exists outside of our playing it. It is a real part of that world, by mutual consensus. If there wasn't a territory of the character, upon which she could base her map, then it would be impossible for her to play that character. If she decided to do something which is not a reasonable interpretation of what that character would do, then she would be playing the role poorly.

Given that this is a role-playing game, poor role-playing should be avoided when possible.

now you skiped my examples and half the post, but to be honest you seem to have the idea just I don't understand where you are going with it...

and whatever you decide you would do

She could imagine herself as that character in that situation, and decide what the character would do. She might decide that the character does the same thing that you would have decided, had you been there, or she might decide that it does something else.

so again, it is THE PLAYER to DECIDE...

 

[Unwise]

As a DM, I have had probably 20 PCs die in my campaigns from other PCs killing them. Thankfully, not in the last few years. These days I simply ask people not to make characters with a code of chivalry, or extreme religious dogma. That little change alone has seen a 100% drop in PC v PC fatalities. Codes of chivalry, or worse yet, bushido, are just terrible for making players feel like they either act out in a disruptive way or stain their honour, I really hate the (often false) dichotomies it forces.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

now you skiped my examples and half the post, but to be honest you seem to have the idea just I don't understand where you are going with it...
[...]
so again, it is THE PLAYER to DECIDE...

My point is just that the character exists independently from the players. There is a true version of the character, within the collective reality formed by player imagination, and someone playing that character is merely offering their own understanding of that reality. The player is a lens through which the character is viewed, or the mirror upon which the character is reflected.

The player doesn't decide what the character does. The player decides what they would do, if they were that character in that situation, and that is the best guess as to what the character would decide to do. I can't say that Gnoll-slayer Bill will choose to spare this one gnoll, which is indistinguishable from every other gnoll he's killed, because I can't honestly tell you that this is the action he would take in that situation. I am merely a lens. I can only tell you what I see.

Completely tangential to the matter at hand, I am also the one who created Gnoll-slayer Bill in the first place. Way back, before the campaign even started. I could have created him with a soft spot toward women and children, and the presence of a female or juvenile gnoll would generate internal conflict for him. Before any of his beliefs or mannerisms were introduced to the collective. I didn't, though, and now it's too late. To introduce such a character quirk after the fact, as soon as it was convenient to the plot, would be introducing bias into the system. It would be disingenuous. It would cheapen the whole world, by suggesting that it is freely mutable and nothing is real.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My point is just that the character exists independently from the players. There is a true version of the character, within the collective reality formed by player imagination, and someone playing that character is merely offering their own understanding of that reality. The player is a lens through which the character is viewed, or the mirror upon which the character is reflected.

there is not 'true' version, just the version the player choses... and again it is the player doing the choosing.

The player doesn't decide what the character does. The player decides what they would do, if they were that character in that situation, and that is the best guess as to what the character would decide to do. I can't say that Gnoll-slayer Bill will choose to spare this one gnoll, which is indistinguishable from every other gnoll he's killed, because I can't honestly tell you that this is the action he would take in that situation. I am merely a lens. I can only tell you what I see.

you can (if you have any imagination) come up with multi possible reactions, the fact that you choose one is again your choice...

Completely tangential to the matter at hand, I am also the one who created Gnoll-slayer Bill in the first place. Way back, before the campaign even started. I could have created him with a soft spot toward women and children, and the presence of a female or juvenile gnoll would generate internal conflict for him. Before any of his beliefs or mannerisms were introduced to the collective. I didn't, though, and now it's too late. To introduce such a character quirk after the fact, as soon as it was convenient to the plot, would be introducing bias into the system. It would be disingenuous. It would cheapen the whole world, by suggesting that it is freely mutable and nothing is real.

if you had never slain in game or refrenced slaying a woman or child gnoll then it is completely schrozinger cat... you both do have and don't have such a quirk until it comes up...

you are again jumping through some big hoops to argue for being a jerk... and you are going out of your way to only use the most extreme example (hate a race sooo hard) when again the basic example was just PC A aiming his crossbow at PC B with no race or class info...

so lets go over YOUR OWN WORDS again...

The player is a lens through which the character is viewed

The player decides what they would do

because I can't honestly tell you that this is the action he would take in that situation. I am merely a lens. I can only tell you what I see

again you go out of your way to dance around a very basic idea... you the player are the one in control...

 

[Fralex]

I've read some very good campaign journals where there was significant rivalry between some characters, but the person recounting these stories was always quick to point out that it was only the characters that fought. The players were all good friends who had great chemistry and respected each other. The rogue that left her to die over an imagined slight in one campaign was the paladin that proudly defended her with his life in another. In one session, she was almost burned at the stake while her friends got the bounty award, then she took hilarious revenge on them all a few sessions later. The bottom line is that whatever crap the characters do to each other, the players all need to be clearly comfortable with. If you want to be evil, you can't just be evil for your own amusement. I get the impression this kind of hijinks only works for experienced groups.