D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[RickTheFox]

Well, I did warn the player (both player to player and PC to PC) that there will be retribution and it will not have a happy ending. I was not totally open with the player as I do not want her to have meta-game advantage. (I did not tell her I intend to bribe thugs to kill her. She thinks I will probably duel her, which she would win. My wizard is a comfortable noble with utility spells, not a fighter... although persuassion -> drink this tasty potion and go for a swim in the sea would probably work).

I talked about this with our DM totally openly and we both agreed that we should try to come up with other solutions, but if we can not find other resolutions then the PC vs PC will be likely the only reasonable outcome. Both me and the DM want to avoid that, so we postponed the next session and we try to think something up... so here I am, gathering some more input and advice.

Problem is, the wizard would not work with the rogue afterwards. Not after being betrayed, not unless he gets some kind of what he would consider "justice"...

To maintain Player-Player friendship, I am considering killing my wizard (which sucks because, believe it or not, I am the victim here. She started the PC vs PC by going after my interests and ruining what my wizard worked for, and I am the one who should lose PC as a result...). Him going insane and drinking poisoned wine would make much more sense than him forgiving. Then I am considering giving my wizard to the DM and making him a villain, that would make the most sense story-wise apart from the obvious PC kill, which would probably make her mad at me IRL.

Unless the DM can think of something better, but so far we have nothing. So I am still hoping I will get something from you guys here

 

[ph0rk]

my character was placed in the game at the very beginning, with DM and the rest of the party aware of his traits and accepting him.

And if you derail the game so much to kill (or attempt to kill - it might not go the way you think) another PC because of a slight like that, that's you derailing the game because of a choice you made.

Well, I did warn the player (both player to player and PC to PC) that there will be retribution and it will not have a happy ending.

This is how you don't get invited back to tables.

Also: this is how your character wakes up without a spellbook.

 

[RickTheFox]

And do you really think it is my wizard derailing the game and not the unprovoked attack by the rogue? You do realize that even if my wizard does not resort to killing her in vengeance, there is no way (not that I can see) they would ever work together after that?

Why is nobody commenting on the choice the rogue made?

Imagine if your character saved up thousands of golds from quests to build a nice house and put all their stuff in (because the goal of your character who had been homeless all his life was to have a nice home) and your party member would cast persuassion on you to make you set it all on fire and then to dance around it, laughing at you. Well, technically, that is not PvP, right? So it is ok and unreasonable to retaliate. Just go on questing happily with them. That is terrible RP... And what happened to me is worse, actually, because house is just gold and you can get paid back, but such a huge blow to reputation will never be forgotten by the NPCs until the end of game.

This is how you don't get invited back to tables.

I already said that perhaps the best advice I got was to find a party where this kind of thing does not happen....

 

[iserith]

Why is nobody commenting on the choice the rogue made?

Because you have no control over what the rogue did. You can only control what you do, if anything, in response. This is what is under discussion.

To that end, doing what is going to be fun for everyone and leads to an exciting, memorable tale is the best choice if you're interested in achieving the goals of play set forth by the game.

 

[RickTheFox]

Amazing answer. And what can I do, that is reasonable (as a response from my PC to the deeds of the rogue) and fun for everyone (me included) and allows us to continue the campaign together?

 

[ph0rk]

I already said that perhaps the best advice I got was to find a party where this kind of thing does not happen....

You brought this to the game though, because it is your character that reacts to every slight with murder.

Amazing answer. And what can I do, that is reasonable (as a response from my PC to the deeds of the rogue) and fun for everyone (me included) and allows us to continue the campaign together?

Start with "not murder" and work from there.

 

[RickTheFox]

My character does NOT react to every slight with murder. Before you give advice (or judgements, thanks) at least read what I write.

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.

What you wrote

You brought this to the game though, because it is your character that reacts

is the same as this ->

WARNING! Guard dog, do not enter
enters
Dog bites
Blame the dog and dog owner.

 

[ph0rk]

It certain seems like your brain that went to murder first, doesn't it? Why is that?

The game requires some meta-gaming where party members will work together. That includes not killing each other for philosophical differences or for minor slights.

 

[FrozenNorth]

FrozenNorth the D&D has technology and culture of approximate era between 1000 BC and 1200 AD. That goes for technology, morality of society and law, written or unwritten, and customs. It is an age where bandits plague roads, aristocrats poison each other over titles and lands, thieves lose their hands for smallest of thefts, nations invade their neigbours for spices or for insults between monarchs. It was not unheard of that if you fall down before kings procession, they would just trample you to death (a life of a commoner was not even worth stopping for, or stop and beat you if they felt generous and crowds would cheer).That is the age, that is the world, that is the setting. DM can, of course, make the settings a little lighter or darker, but the general setting is that time and that era + magic and cool beasts. Anti-social behavior today is very different than anti-social behavior at that age.

This is incorrect. The full plate armor that is sold for 1,500 gp in the PHB? It’s from late 15th-early 16th century. The rapiers favoured by swashbucklers, rogues and bards? It is from a century after that.

With the exception of Theros, every 5e campaign setting features centralized nation states. This is 17th century and later.

Funnily enough, very few 5e products refer to serfs, which would be pretty common if it were set in the Middle Ages.

Very often, magic operates like technology (in some cases explicitly), so you definitely get a more 19th century vibe in some places (such as Eberron, Waterdeep, Ravnica and Barovia).

But that’s only technology. What about mores and customs? Well, modern D&D tries to be more inclusive, so attitudes to women and different races is contemporary rather than medieval. I haven’t seen a lot of references to slavery or indentured servitude either.

There is of course, also the BIG one. Magic didn’t exist in real middle ages. How would that change society? For one thing, I believe that a king would be very careful about trampling an unknown peasant in the dirt where that unknown peasant could be a 3rd level druid and take out all his guards with a heat metal spell.

I don’t think it is reasonable to say that doing X is OK because it would be OK in medieval times where the world is so different from actual medieval times.

 

[iserith]

Amazing answer. And what can I do, that is reasonable (as a response from my PC to the deeds of the rogue) and fun for everyone (me included) and allows us to continue the campaign together?

What is "reasonable" in your mind is subordinate to the latter concerns if you wish to continue playing and achieving the goals of play.

Your character could learn how to take a joke in stride, have a laugh, and get on with his life. Have you considered that? Seems like a good thing for anyone to learn, not just a fictional character you have total control over.