D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[DEFCON 1]

- It is body shuffle, not body swap. I am in body of someone else. Otherwise that is precisely what I would have tried to do, tattoos and loans... As it stands, I can not do anything of the sort. Reputation is important because I made it so - so yeah, it is important. That is the premise of RPG

- yes, vendetta is in my wizards character, he is built all around it. You seriously do not see a difference between a rogue killing you in your sleep because you said no to a loan vs a wizard killing you because you went out of your way to destroy his carefully laid out plans and reputation just because?

- the group are all new players between 18 a 28, with little or no previous experience. We played together from the start, some 9 months ago. My wizard usually makes the calls in the group, there are no significant group dynamics apart from that.

Your feedback is welcome. Even if I do not agree with all of it, I do need to hear and consider it.

You have chosen to make this 'vendetta' characteristic exceedingly punishing to those that have wronged your PC. That's how you chose to make it, and that's how you've chosen to play it up to this point. But those choices do not need to always be made.

There is absolutely no reason why your character couldn't in fact "lighten up" in this instance. No character is stuck in one personality trait. And in fact... having characters evolve actually make for more interesting journeys. So perhaps this event turns out to be the tipping point for your wizard-- now that the shoe is on the other foot and they are on the receiving end of what they've been dishing out this entire time... perhaps the wizard will actually learn that maybe their punishments have not been fitting the victim's crimes. And as a result, maybe this "need for retribution" starts falling away a bit now that the target is a friend and you have less desire to ruin their life.

If this whole thing is really about you as a player trying to get your PC out of a result-- in this case, not attacking and killing a fellow player's PC-- then you just do it. And you make up whatever justification you want for why it happens. Because no "in-game" character or story is worth destroying the fun and trust of the players out of game. It's just not. And which is why the clarion call of "I'm just playing my character!" has been summarily stomped upon and thrown out the window as any sort of legitimate excuse. It's not. Not anymore.

 

[RickTheFox]

Well Defcon, character growth works a bit differently. The way you put it, I might as well start healing enemies, donate all my gold to the poor, apologize to everyone who has wronged me and start begging. That is not the character I am playing. I would really consider his death a more satisfying conclusion of his story and start a new character that might do all the stuff mention above. But not my beloved vengeful aristocratic wizard.

Izerith... yeah that is the same advice (more or less) I got from humble minion. Truth is, I doubt it will be fun for me in a party that ruins what you are building just for trolling, without any in-game reason or even in-game profit.

Thank you guys, I have made my decision on how to proceed. Unless our DM can somehow fix it...

 

[iserith]

Well Defcon, character growth works a bit differently. The way you put it, I might as well start healing enemies, donate all my gold to the poor, apologize to everyone who has wronged me and start begging. That is not the character I am playing. I would really consider his death a more satisfying conclusion of his story and start a new character that might do all the stuff mention above. But not my beloved vengeful aristocratic wizard.

Izerith... yeah that is the same advice (more or less) I got from humble minion. Truth is, I doubt it will be fun for me in a party that ruins what you are building just for trolling, without any in-game reason or even in-game profit.

Thank you guys, I have made my decision on how to proceed. Unless our DM can somehow fix it...

Have you considered that this is the rogue player's way of telling you that you're playing your own character too seriously in a way that isn't fun for other people? It's worth a discussion in any case.

 

[RickTheFox]

Yes, I have asked. Other people do not have any problem with my wizard or the way I play him, nor does the rogue. They do tell me I play too safely, but they do not mind my raven spotting ambushes. Apart from packing extra my nobles clothes and spending my gold on baths and expensive drinks, which hardly impacts them, there is not much difference... that and I tend to remind them stuff like not to wear stolen goods in the city where it had been stolen, or not to murder people in plain sight. Is that too much?

 

[iserith]

Yes, I have asked. Other people do not have any problem with my wizard or the way I play him. They do tell me I play too safely, but they do not mind my raven spotting ambushes. Apart from packing extra my nobles clothes and spending my gold on baths and expensive drinks, which hardly impacts them, there is not much difference... that and I tend to remind them stuff like not to wear stolen goods in the city where it had been stolen, or not to murder people in plain sight. Is that too much?

It's up to your group what is "too much." If you're not sure, it's a good idea in my view to ask them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well Defcon, character growth works a bit differently. The way you put it, I might as well start healing enemies, donate all my gold to the poor, apologize to everyone who has wronged me and start begging.

Ah yes, when I suggest the character evolve, you immediately turn that into doing a complete character 180. That makes perfect sense. Of course there's no baby steps or middle ground to be found... it's either your wizard ruins the lives of people who've wronged him... or you give away all of your money to the poor and become an altruistic beggar who is all light and sunshine. Two choices-- black and white. That's it. How stupid of me not to see that.

You know, I could have sworn my MS Paint program had at least four shades of grey in between those two to use, but maybe I'm just mistaken on that.

 

[RickTheFox]

Aw yes, characters do evolve. And you think a paranoid, aristocratic and quite vengeful wizard, whose whole background story focuses on vengeance, who spent his last months building a business and greasing wheels, gaining reputation and power... you think said wizard, after being betrayed - impersonated, ridiculed, humiliated by one of his party members in a way that ruins everything the wizard worked for... for no reason nor gain at all... you think said wizard would just smile and say c'est la vie?

Where is baby step in that? Where is middle ground in that? I repeat myself, that is not how character growth works. If what I wrote was 180 °(of course it was, it was an exaggeration after all) , what you propose here is 170 °. That is not how character development works.

How stupid of me not to see that.

Indeed.

It's up to your group what is "too much." If you're not sure, it's a good idea in my view to ask them.

I asked. No problem. DM even mentioned I saved the party by reminding them of common sense, as it would probably turn bloody and very badly for people at lvl 3 at the time.

Even if it was too much to remind them sometimes things like "lights out, we are sneaking, arent we?" it hardly warranties such measures on the rogues part. Having said that, I repeat - I asked, no problems or issues were reported, and to the contrary to that - DM was happy with it as it prevented useless fights with guards.

 

[Dire Bare]

I do not really think so. I think creating a character with a fault, be it fear of spiders, alcohol addiction, or partial memory loss after long rest can be fun. Other party members need to be aware of the trait and plan for it. We have a PC who is a 0-conscience drug addict that hears god in his head, we play around it by having some drugs on us and trading him, or using Persuassion on him. Moreover, this trait "vengeful" I have created does not allow me to be a jerk at my discretion. It forces me to react in a certain (predictable and consistent) way - and DM often pushes me to react by implementing some rude NPCs that I have to get back at - and it has good results.

Creating and playing characters with interesting flaws certainly can be entertaining and fun for everybody at the table.

But creating a character who is vengeful to the point of committing evil acts, or worse, killing off another PC . . . . that's not fun for most people. Some groups thrive off that kind of chaos, but you won't find a lot of support for that playstyle here.

 

[Dire Bare]

Aw yes, characters do evolve. And you think a paranoid, aristocratic and quite vengeful wizard, whose whole background story focuses on vengeance, who spent his last months building a business and greasing wheels, gaining reputation and power... you think said wizard, after being betrayed - impersonated, ridiculed, humiliated by one of his party members in a way that ruins everything the wizard worked for... for no reason nor gain at all... you think said wizard would just smile and say c'est la vie?

I think a vengeful character being so upset after being humiliated and ruined turning to murder is certainly a realistic character choice . . . . but it's not the only possible choice, it's definitely an evil choice, and it's likely to be a fun-killing choice for the rogue's player in your D&D game.

The excuse of "it's what my character would do" never flies when you pull a jerk move at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you and I can both agree that such an act is morally evil.

Today, yes. In the period being emulated, however, a noble killing a peasant for giving offense was well within accepted morals: the peasant was the evil one, for having given offense.

No, capital punishment by hanging for the 'crime' of simply insulting someone of a higher social class than you can not be called 'justice'.

Again, that's today speaking. Trying to apply today's morality to a different-era society isn't going to work, in that the result will probably just be today's society dressed in funny clothes which rather defeats some of the point of emulating a different society.