D&D 5E If the DM plays his own PC is it ok for the party to kill him and take his stuff?

[Lanefan]

That seems like really bad form. The mature thing to do would be voice your complaint to the DM. If they don't want to change what they are doing, then leave. Killing another PC is not acceptable IMO

I don't think the OP's plan was to kill the NPC; instead the idea was to sneak off during the night and leave it behind, which is nowhere near as harmful.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think the OP's plan was to kill the NPC; instead the idea was to sneak off during the night and leave it behind, which is nowhere near as harmful.

But still trying to fix an issue in-game that should really be just an open discussion with the DM and group. I just don't see this ending well: either the DM won't get the clue or there's a good chance they'll be upset.

Just talk to the DM about it, even if it's completely off-line in a message.

 

[Oofta]

I do occasionally have NPCs with the party. They use the same rules as the PCs, but while I maintain veto party on actions (that don't remember ever using) a player runs them in combat. Typically a PC that focuses on support, perhaps a simple champion fighter or rogue. Out of combat they may express a general opinion or provide additional knowledge and direction but I try to keep them in the background.

What I have a problem with is a PC run by the DM that is central and critical to the plot, is always hogging the spotlight, or is far more powerful than the other PCs for some reason.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Unless PvP is accepted in a campaign, I don't think it's okay for the party to kill a character and take his stuff, regardless of who's playing it.

The problem is not the presence of DMPC or NPC in a party, but the way some DM manage them. The problem is when they're given too much spotlights or there's favoritism, which is DM to blame, not the tool itself.

​

Mod Edit: Questionable hashtag removed. ~Umbran

 

[ECMO3]

To be clear. There's a difference between an NPC that the DM runs who's going along with the party and a DM controlled PC. The former is fairly common, especially in older editions where hirelings and experts were commonly hired in town; the latter is always a sign to pack your books and dice and move on. The DM PC will almost certainly devolve into a Mary Sue.

I think there is a big difference in ownership too. DMs are unlikely to get bent out of shape if you abandon the NPC hirliing because you don't want to split treasure with him or have a philosophical disagreement with him or something like that. They are playing the NPC but they don't have the same "ownership" invested in the character like what I am calling a DM PC.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean the DM is going to be equally 'bent out of shape' by the players being disruptive to the game just to 'make a point'.

 

[Blue]

I never advocate attempting in-game solutions to out-of-game problems. And a DM proxy forced on the party is an out-of-game issue with the DM. So talk to the DM about it. I had one group that would do a lot of inter-party (but not inter-player) drama and RP, and the DM said thatr without a DMPC they felt bored and left out of that. And we had to figure out if that was acceptable or not. But generally, I am strongly against DMPCs.

(BTW, it is perfectly possible to have NPCs who may temporarily travel with a party and are not DMPCs.)

If you do accept a DMPC into the group, in terms of killing them - PvP is often discussed in Session 0. If it's okay with the group between PCs it should be just find when that PC happens to be run by the DM. And if it isn't that's an additional red flag that the DM is not only running a DMPC but showing them favoritism.

On the other hand, if PvP is not part of your social contract, don't do it to any PCs regardless of who is playing them. At that point you'd be in the wrong, regardless if you feel others are in the wrong as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

EDIT: Oops! Wrong thread

 

[Yaarel]

If the DM plays his own PC is it ok for the party to kill him and take his stuff?

Of course, it is ok.

It depends on the alignment of the characters involved. But a DM mary-sue character is like any player character.



In my experience, DMs have done this, because a character from an earlier campaign became relevant in a current story. But normally, the DM gives the character to one of the players to control.

 

[Plaguescarred]

a DM mary-sue character is like any player character.

Not i don't think it is. Correct me if i'm wrong but a Mary Sue is a derogatory term referring to a character that who’s just too good, perfect and without weakness, to be plausible, which also can be of greater importance etc

Player Characters are not fitting that description.