D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[Lanefan]

I came here for advice, and I am explaining the background and circumstances that let to my conclussion. The conlussion has not been carried out, I can and am willing to change it if I see a reasonable way out... I was actually hoping for some... loophole solution. I do not want to Player Kill. That is why I am here. To find a way, or to make a decision... and of course, whatever decision I make, I accept the consequences.

Problem with what I read here is most guys here do not seem to think a huge reputation damage matters, or that it is a damage at all. And the advice I am getting is - your wizard is the bad guy, do not do it, what the rogue did is fine, PK is wrong no matter what. So if I am not to PK, then I would like to see alternatives.

I gave one: start with a threat instead of a kill. Make sure the target knows the threat's from you but also give yourself an alibi or plausible deniability such that if it comes down to your word against hers you can't be undercut by evidence.

Then if she proceeds, let her have it.

And I am also very curious as to how many people here would consider me a bad player and would not want to play with me if I go with it. I could really use some feedback there. I try to be a good player, but the way I do it is by taking RP aspect seriously.

Now there I honestly can't give a good answer without knowing a) you and b) the rest of your table. At some tables (including mine sometimes) you'd probably fit in just fine. At others, maybe not so much.

The principle of playing your character to wherever it takes you, though, is one I strongly endorse. The thing is, you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad: sometimes following the character will lead you right out of the party, for example, and if that's the case then out it goes.

 

[RickTheFox]

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

Exactly. All you have to do is know the faults and play a little bit around them.

But creating a character who is vengeful to the point of committing evil acts, or worse, killing off another PC

The character I created would not go on a killing frenzy unprovoked. Ever. Maybe if DM put in some NPC especially to provoke him, which is fine and is DMs choice. My wizard would never attack or harm a party member on his own accord. All other players had to do was not provoke him (too much). Some teasing is one thing... for example, once a satyr PC ate a page from my spell book. Killing or harming him did not even occur to me, that would hardly be vengance within reason - it was both within his character and within mine to just smack him with a staff and use prestidigitation on anything he eats to make it taste like s--t a few times. That is fun, I think, both for me and for the other player. This is, however, totally different than the rogue issue.

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.

Yeah and that is why I am here, to obtain some alternatives. Severe enough to sate a vengeful wizards sense of twisted justice, not severe enough to kill the fun. So far, however, I did not get many reasonable suggestions that would fit the criteria.


Lanefan - you get exactly right the post about todays morality and justice in respect to D&D era. Thank you!
Also, regarding the threat/warning first - did that, of course. Both PC to PC and Player to Player.

 

[Lanefan]

- 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.

This right here tells me some things. First off, this game is probably a powderkeg both in good ways and bad; and were I the DM I'd be about ready to have a long and stern talk about keeping character and player separate: argue and kill each other in character all you like but if it gets personal at the table, the door's that way.

Second off: around the table there's probably some establishment of social pecking order going on; this will sort itself out given time.

Third off: some of the most memorable - and funniest - runs of play I've ever seen have arisen from this kind of in-party plot/counterplot. As long as the DM isn't too concerned about when any actual adventuring might get done, you're good.

And fourth off: were I you I'd quietly suggest to the DM that everyone be encouraged to roll up a few extra PCs, to encourage character turnover such that if-when one party splits another can form, either independently or around one fragment of the previous one.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm risking sounding like a jerk here, so I'll apologize in advance, but...
If you really need to ask that question in a public board, maybe you should focus on learning the very basics about being a DM?

Er...I think the OP here is a player in this game, not its DM.

Allowing the group to kill a bb player character is already bad enough, even more so if the player isn't there to defend himself.
Just don't

In "bb player character", what does bb mean?

Also, I might have missed it but I don't recall seeing anything about any players being absent. There's another thread going about killing PCs when their players aren't there; did you mean to post in that one instead?

 

[RickTheFox]

Well, OP post was actually about killing absent PCs. I kinda... added my question here in the mix, because the topic name "players killing players for stupid reasons" is exactly what I googled and it seemed to pretty much cover my problem and I did not want to start a new thread when this one existed. A bit lazy of me

I think Nefermandias reacted to OP, disregarding where the discussion turned in the meanwhile.

 

[Nefermandias]

Er...I think the OP here is a player in this game, not its DM.

In "bb player character", what does bb mean?

Also, I might have missed it but I don't recall seeing anything about any players being absent. There's another thread going about killing PCs when their players aren't there; did you mean to post in that one instead?

Typo

 

[Coroc]

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

Nope.

You obviously also should run a session 0 upfront your games to make an in and out of game social contract. Within the in-game rules you should clarify upfront if PVP can happen in your campaign. But also clarify that an alignment change is included. A paladin might become fallen, etc. Out of game you should clearly state rules on what could happen to absent players PCs, means if they get their share in XP (never give them share in magical items though), they bear part of the risk, so if the other characters push the absent dwarf bear totem barbarian upfront to check for traps , because he is the one who most likely would survive them, and if he has got bad luck while performing this task for the group, then this risk is the price.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

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.

Moral is not the same as legal.

And even then, peasant murder was not as common as Dark Fantasy insists. There's a reason Lady Bathory was prosecuted... and also why people lied to make her out to be a psycho killer in the first place: because even in the time before we invented decency, people knew murdering people was bad.

Plus, even those who did think it was okay to kill serfs did so because they pretended serfs and slaves were property, not people. Even then, you could only murder your property without consequence.

 

[ph0rk]

The game requires a bit of meta-gaming for party characters to work together. Some philosophical bickering is fine, but a blood vendetta, not so much (unless the game is pitched as a battle royale).

If you have an idea for a lone-wolf, to-the-death-for-every-slight grudge-taker, awesome! Sounds like an NPC for when you run a game.

 

[Charlaquin]

“It’s what my character would do” is never an acceptable excuse for character actions because it is within your power to play a character who wouldn’t do that thing. If you can’t imagine any way for the character you’ve created to let this go without murdering a fellow PC, then the character you’ve created is not suited to the party. Either change the way you conceive of the character, or accept that they aren’t appropriate for the campaign and make a new one who will be a better fit.