D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[The Crimson Binome]

The DM looked right at him and went, "I'll tell you who that is, that's your new teammate. You're not pointing your crossbow at him."

But how do you tell the character that? For as much as the DM controls everything in the game world, they still have zero control over the PCs or their actions.

You don't have to be evil to attack other PCs. Fear and poor communication are usually enough. That's why it's the obligation of any new player to make a character that would fit in with the existing characters, and who isn't likely to be shot on sight.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Ive only killed one PC ever.

It was a specifically EVIL campaign. Not my first either. I was playing a Cleric of Nerull (death). We were fighting on some docks with some pirates. I was hurt, my ally was downed by a xbow hit. I asked the DM if any of the pirates close to me were alive, he said no. I casually walked over to my ally, Cast Death Knell and proceeded to whoop ass. It was Nerull's way.

That player still looks at me sideways from time to time.

 

[BigVanVader]

But how do you tell the character that? For as much as the DM controls everything in the game world, they still have zero control over the PCs or their actions.

You don't have to be evil to attack other PCs. Fear and poor communication are usually enough. That's why it's the obligation of any new player to make a character that would fit in with the existing characters, and who isn't likely to be shot on sight.

You don't tell the character that. You tell the player that, and he changes the character's mind if he wants the game to continue at all. There's playing your character, and then there's your character getting in the way of the entire group's game as a whole.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There's playing your character, and then there's your character getting in the way of the entire group's game as a whole.

Right, but the onus should be on the new player and not the old one. If I'm playing someone who hates gnolls and kills every gnoll on sight, then the new player should know to not make a gnoll character.

If the game is stopped because there is no logical course of action, because the only way forward is barred by meta-game fiat, then that's infinitely worse than someone needing to roll up a new character.

 

[BigVanVader]

Right, but the onus should be on the new player and not the old one. If I'm playing someone who hates gnolls and kills every gnoll on sight, then the new player should know to not make a gnoll character.

No it isn't. It's on any player to not aim a crossbow at any other player. They can squabble, like Wolverine and Cyclops, but they shouldn't be coming to blows(unless the table is cool with it players trust blah blah blah).

If the game is stopped because there is no logical course of action, because the only way forward is barred by meta-game fiat, then that's infinitely worse than someone needing to roll up a new character.

No it isn't. Meta-game fiat is another word for real life, where people take incredibly illogical courses of action all the time.

 

[Laeknir]

This thread made me think of Belkar in Order of the Stick - a fantastic comic if you haven't heard of it.

Even if your PC is a murderous little evil halfling rogue, aka SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR, they still have to work with the party and play the game. Murdering other PCs ends the session, if not the campaign.

If your players are having interpersonal issues in real life, they either work it out in real life and get back to playing the game, or someone leaves the group IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

Man, you guys are boring!

Party arguments, internal rivalries, infighting and plots are an accepted part of the game 'round here; as is friendly-fire injury or death whether intentionally done or not. Oddly enough, such instances are often the stories that survive long after every other aspect of whatever adventure it was is forgotten.

Myself, I sometimes play goodly and-or co-operative characters and sometimes I don't; it all depends on what I've got in mind for its personality - and sometimes on how the rest of the party treats it.

An example of what can happen: one of my characters, a front-line Fighter, has been hit a few too many times by friendly-fire area-effect damage spells. So, he went out and got himself a Wizardslayer longsword; and now the party casters are on notice: hit me with your damage spells and this sword's getting used - you might get one more spell away while I'm charging you, so you'd better make it good.

That said, knocking off a character just because the player isn't there (as opposed to any in-character reason) is not cool.

Lan-"if your players are in fact killing other players that's a bigger issue: call the cops"-efan

 

[I'm A Banana]

Right, but the onus should be on the new player and not the old one. If I'm playing someone who hates gnolls and kills every gnoll on sight, then the new player should know to not make a gnoll character.

Every character is their own responsibility. It may be a provocation to create that gnoll PC (in which case, your player is a jerk), but it might also be an interesting RP opportunity for that character who "kills every gnoll in sight" to get some frickin' character dimension and find a reason to NOT kill THIS one. Whether or not the other player wants to provoke you is on them -- you can't stop jerks from bein' jerks (though you can stop playing with them). How you respond to it is on you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right, but the onus should be on the new player and not the old one. If I'm playing someone who hates gnolls and kills every gnoll on sight, then the new player should know to not make a gnoll character.

If the game is stopped because there is no logical course of action, because the only way forward is barred by meta-game fiat, then that's infinitely worse than someone needing to roll up a new character.

My answer has always been "Your character is a sheet of paper, it is no more or less able to take an action on it's own then any other sheet of paper, every choice your character makes is on you, who designed the character AND controls him. If you can't come up with an action that is out of game exceptable, you built your character wrongly... now do you want to redeclair, or draw up a new Character?"

just like my fav problem player saying "My character has no reason to be here."

"Fine, then draw up a character that does."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No it isn't. Meta-game fiat is another word for real life, where people take incredibly illogical courses of action all the time.

The real world must have ZERO impact on the game world. Otherwise you violate causality, and there's no point in even playing. You might as well just tell the players how the game ends, because you have deprived their characters of free will.

Given that the first player has no way of knowing what kind of character a hypothetical future player might make, it is the burden of the second player to not create a character that is likely to provoke the first player's character. You can help to mitigate this possibility by asking the second player, before that character is made, why they expect that the other PCs will trust this new character; if they can't come up with a good reason, then that's sufficient cause to veto that character.