D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[Dire Bare]

Rikka66 - too late for that, I can not stop anyone. Also, the whole group is shuffled and suffers from heavy confusion. The wizard being of high standing is exactly the problem, as I doubt common guards would dare stop him. Also, there is no time - the rogue simply went away while my wizard stayed to "control" another party member that used some drugs in body of my wizard´s wife and wants to go to the ball naked under the influence of drugs... I only have one concentration (Persuassion).

Vaalingrade - proving it is not that hard, problem is the attempt has been made and succeeded. Now it is just damage control. I do not see a way for the wizard to work together in the party with the rogue, even if there was no vengeance. Letting them kill my body is not something I would like to do, it is actually another thing to watch out for and protect her while she is in my body. What a nightmare.

ph0rk / Maxperson - I tried talking her out of it. Both player-player AND PC-PC. She does not care. I will have to cover my steps more carefully if I decide to kill her, I have an idea or two how.

Bradley Hindman - there is no out-of-game problem between us, that is just what she wants to do in-game. No out-of-game or meta reason. Just wants to do it. Love that sand castle approximation by the way.

Dire Bare - having her executed by law or by poison makes no difference to my PC, nor to the IRL implications. The game would still go on with her PC gone. Also, if I were to rebuild that (and I am not sure I could, such a thing would hardly be forgotten), my wizard would hardly just merrily go on questing with the rogue. No way of that happening.

******

Anyway, thank you all for your advice. Some of it was extremely helpful.

Conclusion - I explained here what happened and that I see it like I was cornered and have no choice, but most of you do not see it that way. So I have to very reluctantly assume the rest of the party would probably not see it my way either.

I have decided that I will not PC kill, because even though I can stay detached from the game and what happens there, I very much doubt she and some others in the party can do the same.

I will offer my wizard to the DM with the story that he swore revenge and left the party. There is no way they would work together after that, and this way I can avoid PC kill. The wizard will, I think, become the worst villain of the game. I can live (happily) knowing that. And I will roll a new character, probably a simple barbarian without a care in the world... or just find another party, a party with more decent players, where I would never have to solve such problems and react to such situations.

It is a shame, though. It was my first ever character. And I really liked him. Really.

Sounds like you're making a good choice. But remember, the goal of this game isn't to win, it's simply to have fun with friends and tell a good story together.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am still REALLY confused as to why murder is the best and first option here, especially when proving it wasn't your character isn't that hard--I'm not seeing where the lasting damage is coming from and I definitely don't see why you have to vilify the other players if you thought the bit was funny too.

If this really is what the character would do so such a minor, correctable slight... maybe it's a type of character that doesn't need to see play at all.

 

[AmerginLiath]

You don’t kill the character who isn’t there. You “accidentally” leave him behind when the party moves on because he didn’t say anything (the old Home Alone trick). Gives him the option of finding his way back through humiliating solo play meant to teach him a lesson!

 

[RickTheFox]

I find it's best not to get attached to characters. Drive them like a stolen car and have fun (and make the game fun for others) while they last, but have no expectation that they'll be around forever as you imagined them. They'll die, change, go mad, be turned to stone forever, retire, or the adventure or campaign may end before you ever get to see much development.

So best to play as if there is no tomorrow and roll with it because, if you've played long enough, you'll know that frequently there actually is no tomorrow and it's not worth pinning one's fun on an expectation that will be subverted as often as it may be in D&D.

You and I play very differently. When I play a character, I really try to get into their head, what motivates them, why, how would they react... After 9 months of course I get attached and I care... And that wizard was special to me for other reasons, too.

I am still REALLY confused as to why murder is the best and first option here, especially when proving it wasn't your character isn't that hard--I'm not seeing where the lasting damage is coming from and I definitely don't see why you have to vilify the other players if you thought the bit was funny too.

If this really is what the character would do so such a minor, correctable slight... maybe it's a type of character that doesn't need to see play at all.

Well I am sorry if you do not see it, perhaps I failed to illustrate why it is not a minor slight, nor a major slight, but a brutal betrayal with devastating consequences. And why murder is the best option, well because of the background and character of the wizard and magnitude of the transgression of the offender. And because the offender has nothing else of sufficient value I could target. Again, if I failed to explain it in so many detailed and long posts, I doubt I can re-explain it here.

Sounds like you're making a good choice. But remember, the goal of this game isn't to win, it's simply to have fun with friends and tell a good story together.

Yeah... I know... thanks. But damn, I did like that wizard.

 

[Charlaquin]

And do you really think it is my wizard derailing the game and not the unprovoked attack by the rogue?

If you feel your fellow player’s behavior is disruptive to the game, the appropriate response is to talk to the other player, like mature adults, not to kill their character.

 

[iserith]

You and I play very differently. When I play a character, I really try to get into their head, what motivates them, why, how would they react... After 9 months of course I get attached and I care... And that wizard was special to me for other reasons, too.

Someone double-dog dared me to ask - what other reasons?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed, to a point; and that point arrives when the "if anything" bit rears its head. Because if the wizard in this example Does Nothing in response (which certainly seems to be the preferred response from some posters here) then that somewhat sets a precedent wherein the rogue has free rein to run roughshod over the wizard as the campaign goes on.

Put another way, doing nothing now effectively ties the wizard's hands should the rogue do anything further to him in the future, as a response at that point would be considered as not being true to the character based on the precedent established now. He has to do something. The question is what.

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.

Thing is, it's often very hard to tell exactly what that best choice would be until after it's done.

Here, the wizard's player seems to really not know whether killing the rogue is the best choice, and if not, what choice(s) might be better; and even with the info provided we still don't and can't truly know his table or its dynamics and thus can only kinda guess from afar.

A very likely result - and which in fact happened to my first character, who was also a noble put in a similar-but-different position - is that after killing the rogue the wizard gets put on drumhead trial by the rest of the party and then hanged from a tree. I have to assume RickTheFox is cool with this possibility.

 

[Lanefan]

Further, I personally find the "it's what my character would do" argument to be an admission of a failure of imagination in a game based on make-believe.

I kinda disagree, in that having a character do what it would do regardless of meta-consequences to me says the player's imagination and-or inhabitation of that character is working very well indeed.

Also - as a general point not related to the quote above - I fully second whoever's motion it was that said booting a character from the party is NOT the same as, and should never be equated with, booting a player from the table. I've played with many great players and enjoyed their company at the table immensely, even though our characters were fighting like cats at the time.

 

[Lanefan]

I have decided that I will not PC kill, because even though I can stay detached from the game and what happens there, I very much doubt she and some others in the party can do the same.

I will offer my wizard to the DM with the story that he swore revenge and left the party. There is no way they would work together after that, and this way I can avoid PC kill. The wizard will, I think, become the worst villain of the game. I can live (happily) knowing that. And I will roll a new character, probably a simple barbarian without a care in the world... or just find another party, a party with more decent players, where I would never have to solve such problems and react to such situations.

It is a shame, though. It was my first ever character. And I really liked him. Really.

Then keep playing him!

Pull him from the party, sure - but he's still your character; don't sign him over to the DM. Then, in a few months you and the DM can spend a night in the pub where you-as-player plot out the long-term revenge the wizard takes on the rogue, and-or catch him up otherwise.

Never mind that for all you know that rogue's going to die at the next opportunity, in the usual way adventurers sometimes do, thus paving the way for your wizard to come rolling back in.

 

[iserith]

Agreed, to a point; and that point arrives when the "if anything" bit rears its head. Because if the wizard in this example Does Nothing in response (which certainly seems to be the preferred response from some posters here) then that somewhat sets a precedent wherein the rogue has free rein to run roughshod over the wizard as the campaign goes on.

Put another way, doing nothing now effectively ties the wizard's hands should the rogue do anything further to him in the future, as a response at that point would be considered as not being true to the character based on the precedent established now. He has to do something. The question is what.

The wizard doesn't have to do anything. In fact, I'd lay money on Doing Nothing or at least Being A Good Sport About It completely neutralizing the desire to do such things again. This situation reads to me like trying to get a rise out of the player of the wizard. Play into that and the endless cycle of retaliation may begin because now the rogue's player knows what to do to annoy you.

I'd wager there's a social situation playing out at this table and social cues have not been picked up on in the previous 9 months by the wizard's player, so the rogue's player thought this would be the next step in communicating some kind of discontent about how the wizard player behaves. It's not a good move on his or her part, but again, something about the details here point in this direction to me.

The smart play is to just have a discussion outside the context of the game in my view as has been echoed by others.