PKing between PCs; do you allow it?
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I'm going to go against the grain of most other responses and say that, heck yes, I allow it. I might interfere if I think it will be fun to do so within the campaign, but I won't stop one PC from killing another.
I do expect my players to come up with PCs that are motivated toward cooperating with each other and not fighting each other, but beyond that, they can play what and how they want to play. If a PC killing fits in with the characters as they've been played, I have absolutely no trouble with it.
For example, in an Orient Adventures campaign I ran many years ago, we were playing in Blood of the Yakuza, a module designed to bring out political rivalries and conflict between PCs due to competing allegiances. The a couple of barbarians (brother and sister) had a magic ring that was pilfered by the party yakuza while they had it out on loan to the monk. It was a ring of invisibility and the only real reason the male barbarian kept it was because of the player's metagame thoughts on the topic of giving a ring of invisibility to a rogue. The monk resolved the situation peacefully by paying a friendly street urchin to steal the ring back. The barbarians, noses out of joint, ratted out the yakuza (who was also ninja) to the localy daimyo. WHOO BOY!
Once the yakuza PC got wind of what happened (don't assume a yakuza doesn't have the right contacts to figure things out, word to the wise), he faked his own death with the help of some other PCs, went into hiding, and came back under a disguise and rejoined the group. He plotted the whole spring term to kill the barbarians, I interfered a little to draw out the drama, but he succeeded in the end.
At first I thought this was a problem and, during a semester break, I consulted with long time friends and other players. All of them, unanimously, asked my why the barbarians were still alive in the first place. You see, where I come from, gaming wise, a little pilfering is OK, especially if dealt with peacefully (as this was). But betraying members of the party to certain death? Beyond the pale. PC death was the agreed upon penalty... assuming the yakuza PC could bring it off.
Did the barbarian players get their noses out of joint? A bit, but I can't say they didn't deserve the treatment they got.
I do expect my players to come up with PCs that are motivated toward cooperating with each other and not fighting each other, but beyond that, they can play what and how they want to play. If a PC killing fits in with the characters as they've been played, I have absolutely no trouble with it.
For example, in an Orient Adventures campaign I ran many years ago, we were playing in Blood of the Yakuza, a module designed to bring out political rivalries and conflict between PCs due to competing allegiances. The a couple of barbarians (brother and sister) had a magic ring that was pilfered by the party yakuza while they had it out on loan to the monk. It was a ring of invisibility and the only real reason the male barbarian kept it was because of the player's metagame thoughts on the topic of giving a ring of invisibility to a rogue. The monk resolved the situation peacefully by paying a friendly street urchin to steal the ring back. The barbarians, noses out of joint, ratted out the yakuza (who was also ninja) to the localy daimyo. WHOO BOY!
Once the yakuza PC got wind of what happened (don't assume a yakuza doesn't have the right contacts to figure things out, word to the wise), he faked his own death with the help of some other PCs, went into hiding, and came back under a disguise and rejoined the group. He plotted the whole spring term to kill the barbarians, I interfered a little to draw out the drama, but he succeeded in the end.
At first I thought this was a problem and, during a semester break, I consulted with long time friends and other players. All of them, unanimously, asked my why the barbarians were still alive in the first place. You see, where I come from, gaming wise, a little pilfering is OK, especially if dealt with peacefully (as this was). But betraying members of the party to certain death? Beyond the pale. PC death was the agreed upon penalty... assuming the yakuza PC could bring it off.
Did the barbarian players get their noses out of joint? A bit, but I can't say they didn't deserve the treatment they got.
Aeric
Explorer
The situation has come up a small number of times over the many years I have been gaming, and always it was because one of the characters was being really stupid and/or insulting and it came to blows. The only time anyone was ever killed as a result of intra-party combat was when the player of one particularly obnoxious halfling rogue left the group (disappeared on us, really) and the DM decided to NPC her, thus giving us a good excuse to finally off her. It was quite cathartic, actually.
I think that, unless everyone is going into the game with the understanding that intra-party combat can happen and that no one should take it seriously, PKing is disruptive and too liable to hurt feelings. While I don't overtly disallow it, I encourage people to make characters that would be unlikely to kill each other.
Besides, there are far too many monsters in the world that need a-killin'. In the words of Sinead O'Connor: fight the real enemy!
I think that, unless everyone is going into the game with the understanding that intra-party combat can happen and that no one should take it seriously, PKing is disruptive and too liable to hurt feelings. While I don't overtly disallow it, I encourage people to make characters that would be unlikely to kill each other.
Besides, there are far too many monsters in the world that need a-killin'. In the words of Sinead O'Connor: fight the real enemy!
the Lorax
First Post
Always have, and always will.
While I have vetoed character ideas that wouldn't fit into the campaign, I have done so only very rarely. I have always run VERY player driven games, with multiple plot hooks, and an evolving world takeing place around the characters. The characters are always free to participate in whichever threads that they feel like, and other plot threads either evolve or get handled by others. If your players are so childish that they feel the need to create "revenge" characters, perhaps they need to be playing somewhere else. It's a game. An enjoyable pasttime that I have spent untold hours playing and focusing my attention on, but still a game.
That being said, PKing has happened only a handful of times in games that I have run over the last 25 years. And in the many games I have played in I have only seen a 'revenge' character happen once, and it didn't involve PKing, or any party/PC conflicts.
While I have vetoed character ideas that wouldn't fit into the campaign, I have done so only very rarely. I have always run VERY player driven games, with multiple plot hooks, and an evolving world takeing place around the characters. The characters are always free to participate in whichever threads that they feel like, and other plot threads either evolve or get handled by others. If your players are so childish that they feel the need to create "revenge" characters, perhaps they need to be playing somewhere else. It's a game. An enjoyable pasttime that I have spent untold hours playing and focusing my attention on, but still a game.
That being said, PKing has happened only a handful of times in games that I have run over the last 25 years. And in the many games I have played in I have only seen a 'revenge' character happen once, and it didn't involve PKing, or any party/PC conflicts.
Last edited:
SweeneyTodd
First Post
Honestly, I'd like to see more player-on-player violence in my games.
Backstory: our current game is based on Zelazny's Amber series, so the PCs (and the few NPCs that actually matter) are all related. There's a strong in-game reason for them not to actually kill each other, but plotting and backstabbing is encouraged, and most of our "plot" comes from their machinations against each other and/or their NPC brothers and sisters.
So far, they've been going easy on each other. Hopefully it'll get ugly, soon, seeing as how there are some secret PC-against-PC plots that are about to come out.
I'm lucky, though. My players get along so well that the only metagaming involved with PKing is that they avoid it.
Backstory: our current game is based on Zelazny's Amber series, so the PCs (and the few NPCs that actually matter) are all related. There's a strong in-game reason for them not to actually kill each other, but plotting and backstabbing is encouraged, and most of our "plot" comes from their machinations against each other and/or their NPC brothers and sisters.
So far, they've been going easy on each other. Hopefully it'll get ugly, soon, seeing as how there are some secret PC-against-PC plots that are about to come out.
I'm lucky, though. My players get along so well that the only metagaming involved with PKing is that they avoid it.
RuminDange
First Post
I'd have to say I agree with ARandomGod on this one. I don't stop the players from doing anything. It has been made very clear that the world responds to the actions that happen in game either that their characters do or NPC do around them. They get no special treatment other than what they earn in game. If they provoke a fight or create a reason for other character to take them out then that is something they have to deal with in game in character.
I agree it can lead to hurt feelings especially when someone wears their feeling on their sleeve but if they tend to cause problems that result in their characters coming at odds with other players it is something they as a player have to learn to deal with in my opinion. I hate being told what I can or can’t do with my character and therefore I won’t tell my players that, but I will tell them to expect the responses.
Side trek:
I’ve got characters currently that are not on the best of terms as one keeps opening his mouth and telling party secrets and activities to everyone around no matter who they are and putting the whole party in danger of arrest and execution, and he has been warned not to this, but his actions in game puts him at odds with the party. As a group they killed a minor noble of this kingdom when they came across him and his dominated trolls chasing down a unicorn herd during a hunt. They saved the unicorns but to the kingdom, it wouldn’t matter since the nobility of this kingdom can do as they please, and none of the party is higher nobles. Besides that they were on a treasure hunt and were not going to tell the nobility so they wouldn’t lose everything to taxes, another major crime in the kingdom. This is causing problems between players since one would probably have taken him out to keep the group safe (the party is mostly neutral), but didn’t since the player is sensitive and really likes his character. But dealing with the in-game repercussions of his actions is causing the group problems.
End side trek:
RD
I agree it can lead to hurt feelings especially when someone wears their feeling on their sleeve but if they tend to cause problems that result in their characters coming at odds with other players it is something they as a player have to learn to deal with in my opinion. I hate being told what I can or can’t do with my character and therefore I won’t tell my players that, but I will tell them to expect the responses.
Side trek:
I’ve got characters currently that are not on the best of terms as one keeps opening his mouth and telling party secrets and activities to everyone around no matter who they are and putting the whole party in danger of arrest and execution, and he has been warned not to this, but his actions in game puts him at odds with the party. As a group they killed a minor noble of this kingdom when they came across him and his dominated trolls chasing down a unicorn herd during a hunt. They saved the unicorns but to the kingdom, it wouldn’t matter since the nobility of this kingdom can do as they please, and none of the party is higher nobles. Besides that they were on a treasure hunt and were not going to tell the nobility so they wouldn’t lose everything to taxes, another major crime in the kingdom. This is causing problems between players since one would probably have taken him out to keep the group safe (the party is mostly neutral), but didn’t since the player is sensitive and really likes his character. But dealing with the in-game repercussions of his actions is causing the group problems.
End side trek:
RD
Fieari
Explorer
It has been nessesary on a few occassions. Each time has been a good moment for the group as a whole. Once, a PC had to be "put down" due to trying to read the mind of an allip. But that was basically the party (and the player) deciding that the PC was practically already dead and beyond hope (he'd had a bunch of other curses applied to him, and this was the final straw... he wanted a new PC anyway).
The other, more interesting time, was when the party decided to ressurect a party member that had died sessions ago (the player had already made a new character, and they basically wanted to ress this one in order to get information the old character had, and the new character didn't. I love my group, they refuse to metagame.) They unfortunately used an evil artifact... in fact, the same evil artifact that would have killed the entire party if the gelatenous cubes didn't get them first. So the character came out evil.
It was a FANTASTIC roleplaying event. I had taken the player aside and asked if he'd mind playing a villian at the same time as the hero he also had. At first the character just acted a bit skittish... aparently he'd just been through hell, litterally. And then during the first major combat, while everyone THOUGHT he was getting into a flanking position (he was a rogue) he skipped off with the party's loot and the evil artifact in question. For the next three or four sessions, the player got to both plot the parties death and try to stop himself. Quite a challenge for the player, but he was up to it, and it worked out great.
His old character, under his control, ended up killing only one of the party, but that death was very cool. Very heroic, substatutionary death sort of thing. The party member that died pushed the only non-lightning protected character out of the way of a lightning bolt and died in the process.
The party managed to kill the old rogue shortly after.
It has been one of the highlights of the entire campaign. Very cool.
Your group might not have been able to handle it as maturely, but in my group, it was beautiful.
The other, more interesting time, was when the party decided to ressurect a party member that had died sessions ago (the player had already made a new character, and they basically wanted to ress this one in order to get information the old character had, and the new character didn't. I love my group, they refuse to metagame.) They unfortunately used an evil artifact... in fact, the same evil artifact that would have killed the entire party if the gelatenous cubes didn't get them first. So the character came out evil.
It was a FANTASTIC roleplaying event. I had taken the player aside and asked if he'd mind playing a villian at the same time as the hero he also had. At first the character just acted a bit skittish... aparently he'd just been through hell, litterally. And then during the first major combat, while everyone THOUGHT he was getting into a flanking position (he was a rogue) he skipped off with the party's loot and the evil artifact in question. For the next three or four sessions, the player got to both plot the parties death and try to stop himself. Quite a challenge for the player, but he was up to it, and it worked out great.
His old character, under his control, ended up killing only one of the party, but that death was very cool. Very heroic, substatutionary death sort of thing. The party member that died pushed the only non-lightning protected character out of the way of a lightning bolt and died in the process.
The party managed to kill the old rogue shortly after.
It has been one of the highlights of the entire campaign. Very cool.
Your group might not have been able to handle it as maturely, but in my group, it was beautiful.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
The only times that I have allowed it are when one of the PCs is a ringer - an NPC being run by a player rather than the DM.
Oh, and accidents - I have seen more characters killed by a clumsy fireball...
The Auld Grump
Oh, and accidents - I have seen more characters killed by a clumsy fireball...
The Auld Grump
Similar Threads
