Do you allow murder within the party?

[Walken]

Next time on a very racist Webster..........

I was the little guy and the whole thing was to funny for me to be upset. A former circus performer who lost is job due to an elephant sitting on a patron begains a life as 3 Card Monty dealer is asked by a Native American to show him around the streets of San Francisco. Having no idea where anything is, he takes the $10 and sets off running.

A 3 foot tall black male with an oily mustache and a folding card table is being chased through an alley way by a 6'2" Navajo with a knife wearing a head dress! Can't you hear the Benny Hill music?!

 

[TheYeti1775]

Don't like it but wouldn't stop it either.

I've seen it tear a group apart and I've seen it played out well.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Always.

For instance I had a player that was playing a Pixie a few years back and he would always run from battle, so the Ranger of the group had enough of his cowardice and when he went to run shot him in the head with an arrow. It was a critical hit and that was the end of the Pixie.

 

[Lorgrom]

In the groups I play with, we do allow characters to fight and kill eachother. As long as it fits the campaign. One time we ended up with everyone but one being killed by eachother, one right after eachother. Becouse all the characters had a justified in-game reason to kill each other.

 

[Mycanid]

That's the one thing as DM that I will deny a player from attempting with his character. Your character can sell slaves, smoke dope, curse, engage in evil acts with NPC's, steal, lie, cheat, and commit suicide -- but you're not trying to kill another PC (unless the player wants to play along). I'll give them all the NPCs they want to try and screw over, but the other players are there for their own fun.

I'm all for Player free will on their PCs, but their free will ends where it impinges on another player's fun. You can trigger every alarm in the evil guy's lair, and leave the whole party to deal with consequences, but you aren't using my and others' entertainment time to screw with us.

QFT!!!

I think the underlined text is the point here.

I have been in campaigns where the DM allowed one character to kill another's. It not only wiped out the pc but wiped out the campaign as well. A pity too. It was showing promise....

 

[Celebrim]

I was suprised by the poll options. This seemed like a straight forward 'Yes' or 'No' question to me. Actually, I was surprised by the poll question. It seems to me that players ought to be free to do what they want to do without me railroading them.

What I would do is prevent anyone from playing a character which was implicitly or explicitly described as having the intent to betray the party. This always struck me as serious metagaming, since exactly what are you relying on in this case to obtain the trust and even the acquaintance of the other party members if not your OOC relationship to the players.

Likewise, I'd overrule any character that seemed it would inevitably come to loggerheads with the rest of the party unless all the players consented to play with a 'wild card' in the party. In other words, the party must be expected to at least somewhat mesh in goals and philosophies. Generally, this solves the problem of characters trying to murder each other by elimenating thier motive.

But if the story was role played well, I'd allow a party to split into two parties, flesh out each party with new PC's for each player not having an original PC in the new party (or transform retainers from NPC's to PC's), and proceed to run side by side campaigns even presumably with each new party hating and wanting to murder the members of the other. (In other words, players would be expected to be trying to kill thier own PC's with one of thier other PC's).

 

[BlackMoria]

Always. The players are adults and I play a 'consequences' campaign with mature themes. I don't overrule anything the players have their characters attempt (including PC killing) but I will (and have) hammered characters with consequences for said actions.

 

[billd91]

The option is always there, but that doesn't mean it's "on the table" so to speak. I won't intervene to prevent intra-party conflict unless it gets too heated for the players, but there's usually an unspoken social contract at the table that prohibits such behavior.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Never mind that's not possible in WoW, carry on with the flavor of the week bash.

Then those who play in my group are lying to me. As is South Park, American Dad, and every other WoW parody out there. You're saying all the stories I have heard about WoW players going out and hacking each other apart aren't true? There's nowhere in the game to go do that? If so, I retract my comments. I was not slamming all WoW players, though I could see how my comments could be taken as a gross generalization.

Feel free to remove WoW from my post and insert any player that comes in thinking it fun to slaughter his fellows.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Then those who play in my group are lying to me. As is South Park, American Dad, and every other WoW parody out there. You're saying all the stories I have heard about WoW players going out and hacking each other apart aren't true?

You cannot kill your party members in WoW. You cannot kill people on your same side of the war in WoW. EverQuest I, though, allowed you to do this, sometimes by accident (say, with certain area-effect spells -- oops!).