D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[Snarf Zagyg]

My character does NOT react to every slight with murder. Before you give advice (or judgements, thanks) at least read what I write.

From your OP:

So, I believe this could only result in my wizard smiling, working hard to get my body back, and then hiring some thugs to kill her after giving her poisoned wine. As a player, I can not think of any reason for my PC not to do it, or of anything else my PC would do. I think she (player) does not expect it, and it would come as a great surprise to her, ...

I feel my hand is forced and I can only react to what she is doing, in a very consistent and predictable response I have demonstrated in the game many times over.

And here's your more recent post:
I talked about this with our DM totally openly and we both agreed that we should try to come up with other solutions


This is remarkably simple. Notice a few things going on here? Your DM (despite your phrasing) does not want you to kill another player, and your gaming session is postponed until you come up with a new solution. You have asked people on the forum, and the responses you are getting are overwhelming. Finally, even in your OP (which presents this in the light most favorably to you), you acknowledge that you don't want to tip off the other player for "meta-game" reasons because she would not expect it.

Look- "vengeful" can mean a lot of things. Maybe you give the rogue a cold shoulder for a while. Maybe you find some way to get the Rogue back that isn't lethal (although I am hesitant to recommend "humiliating" because you seem to take things a little too seriously). Maybe you understand that characters personalities aren't static, and that this is something you use for the character's growth (a ha! maybe the Wizard was always into cross-dressing ... or maybe this is chance for the Wizard to explore forgiveness).

It's a complication; use it as an opportunity to explore new horizons, and have fun! Because the one thing that isn't fun is PvP (unless you are in a campaign that is explicit about encouraging and allowing it, and you already wrote that the other player wouldn't expect it).

Good luck.

 

[Nitrosaur]

What you wrote

is the same as this ->

WARNING! Guard dog, do not enter
enters
Dog bites
Blame the dog and dog owner.

But your wizard isn't a rabid dog, or an evil dragon, he is a humanoid. He can think, he can change a grow from what he was before. He can channel his emotions in more ways than murdering the rogue. He can demand payment, the restoration of his honor, maybe even a duel (and that's way better than murdering the PC, at least it's going head on and not from the back with no chance of defense). He can channel his frustration on his enemies or towards the world at large, and be resentful. Maybe even chill, realize that pride and vengeance are not all there is to it. Maybe he can't bring himself to kill the rogue, he would if it wasn't a companion, but maybe he is softening up just a little bit. Perhaps he realices he can't murder someone in cold blode because the cops will hang him like a murderer. Maybe he kinda respects the guts of the rogue, or maybe he decides to wait until the BBEG is dead because the party need all the help they can muster. But really man, murder by poison is one of the most unfun things the wizard could do.

 

[RickTheFox]

It certain seems like your brain that went to murder first, doesn't it? Why is that?

The game requires some meta-gaming where party members will work together. That includes not killing each other for philosophical differences or for minor slights.

Again, I can see you have not read what I wrote in numerous posts before. Please, do not give advice if you do not bother finding out what is going on.


FrozenNorth thumbs up for you!

• Yes, you are correct there again. The history and technology is not consistent between our world and history and D&D world and history. For example gunpowder was invented and used for warfare around 1000 AD, but it is not usually included in D&D. People usually consider plate mail and knights to be of much older date than gunpowder, but it is not so. Trebuchet was actually invented after gunpowder. Had we assumed D&D took place at later time with later technology, we would have uniforms not habits, muskets and not crossbows, which most DMs (wisely) forbid. That is why I set the date in my mind at around the time before gunpowder was commonly used or earlier.
• You are exactly correct when it comes to serfdom. In d&d I think it is mostly done through monetary taxes, but in in our history of the time the tax was paid by labour or goods. Slavery should be common, too, in some regions... but I think these things are up to DM and mostly they do not want to include that.

 

[ph0rk]

Again, I can see you have not read what I wrote in numerous posts before.

You wrote:

So, I believe this could only result in my wizard smiling, working hard to get my body back, and then hiring some thugs to kill her after giving her poisoned wine. As a player, I can not think of any reason for my PC not to do it, or of anything else my PC would do.

This is a corner you have painted yourself into.

But really man, murder by poison is one of the most unfun things the wizard could do.

Never mind that it isn't fait accompli - the rogue has ample opportunity to notice the event, everyone is likely to notice the wizard casting invisibility "for no reason" around mealtime, and then there is the matter of acquiring the poison. There are of course many ways to uncover what was done after the fact, resurrect the rogue, and throw the unwise wizard into a prison.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

RickTheFox, I think you should sidestep all the morality issues that have been raised here as I don't think they aren't really at the heart of the matter. This situation obviously isn't fun for you. You feel like the player of the rogue has backed you into a corner where your only choices aren't enjoyable. If the other player is aware of how you feel, then they are being a complete jerk. I don't play with people who get their jollies by trashing another player's fun, nor should you. If they are unaware of how you feel, then you need to tell them bluntly person to person, not character to character. At that point, if they continue with their plan, you have your answer. They don't care about you and your fun. The question then changes from what your wizard should do, to what you should do.

 

[Dire Bare]

Again, I can see you have not read what I wrote in numerous posts before. Please, do not give advice if you do not bother finding out what is going on.


FrozenNorth thumbs up for you!

• Yes, you are correct there again. The history and technology is not consistent between our world and history and D&D world and history. For example gunpowder was invented and used for warfare around 1000 AD, but it is not usually included in D&D. People usually consider plate mail and knights to be of much older date than gunpowder, but it is not so. Trebuchet was actually invented after gunpowder. Had we assumed D&D took place at later time with later technology, we would have uniforms not habits, muskets and not crossbows, which most DMs (wisely) forbid. That is why I set the date in my mind at around the time before gunpowder was commonly used or earlier.
• You are exactly correct when it comes to serfdom. In d&d I think it is mostly done through monetary taxes, but in in our history of the time the tax was paid by labour or goods. Slavery should be common, too, in some regions... but I think these things are up to DM and mostly they do not want to include that.

Dude, you are getting advice. Folks are not misunderstanding you. And you're being unnecessarily hostile. Just because you don't like the advice, doesn't mean folks aren't responding to you in good faith.

You want options other than murder? Okay.

• Work to thwart or disrupt the rogue's plans to humiliate or ruin your character.
• Payback the rogue, but not with murder. Devise a plan to humiliate or ruin them. (I actually don't recommend this either, it's better than murder, but still disruptive)
• Convince the party to boot the rogue for their jerk plan to ruin your wizard's life. (to be clear, not boot the player, but boot the character from the party)
• Have your character go through a change of heart. After having your life's work ruined, and feeling the temptation to murder the rogue who ruined your life . . . instead your character finds religion and multi-classes into cleric or monk. Or some similar life change.
• Have your wizard turned into a DM-run NPC character who IS going to pursue a murderous vendetta against the rogue and the entire party for allowing the humiliation and ruin. Your character becomes an NPC villain . . . . and you roll up a new character.
• I'm sure there are more things you could do, the fun of role-playing games are the endless possibilities.

 

[RickTheFox]

This is a corner you have painted yourself into.

Yes, I came here because I believe I could only kill her. That is why I came. To find another solution. That is not a corner, that is a starting point.

The wizard is wise, he already has the poison. He can cast prestidigitation to mask the taste. The body will not be found, and if so, then murder will not be suspected. Persuasion - drink this and go for a swim in the sea. The wizard has... had - because of the rogue, past time - ... great political standing so he would be judged by his friends who respect ... respected... him. (See what this cost me?)

You feel like the player of the rogue has backed you into a corner where your only choices aren't enjoyable. If the other player is aware of how you feel, then they are being a complete jerk.

Bradley Hindman thank you very much for this. You get it exactly. And this is the case. Still though, I would prefer another way...

Dire Bear sorry if you think I am being hostile, I try not to be. That ph0rk guy said some untrue things as his premise to giving advice, things I have explained in previous posts. That is why I told him off.

• thwarting that plan is not an option, already underway. Also, the attempt itself is betrayal. Rest is damage control.
• rogue is a nobody with no reputation, just a promiscuos thug with no standing. No reputation for me to target
• that is what I am trying to avoid, to lose a player or to lose a PC, I do not want to break the party (as a person I would rather leave myself than be the cause of another being booted out. I also like the player, just not that one action her PC made)
• change of heart would not be reasonable at all. Honestly, I kinda like my wizard the way he is. I would rather see him dead than... not being him... the only reasonable change of heart would be for him to commit suicide.
• a new villain for DM is my current to go strategy

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I don't permit PvP in my game, and I'd very strongly consider walking from a table if a DM permitted it at theirs. It's just not a healthy dynamic, and I'd rather save myself the anguish and skip the "game went down in flames" part of the process.

If two players ever got to the point where their characters legitimately hated one another's guts such that only a violent solution could resolve the conflict....we would handle it "off-camera." If it's really that bad, I'd probably ask both players to think about retiring their characters, unless one seemed particularly innocent (e.g. the perceived slight was minor, or only one of the two had engaged in ongoing harrassment-type behavior.) Otherwise, we hash out a reasonable resolution that the two players can agree on, give it a quick montage/flashback summary at the next session, and then move on with our lives.

Thing is, getting to this problem means they've had a sustained breakdown in communication that neither player felt they could bring to me until things blew way past the breaking point. That's bad--and not just for those characters, it's bad for the ongoing health of the game. I would actually call it bad enough that I'd start worrying about whether the group's long-term cohesion is in danger.

But, as I've said in various places, I don't allow Evil characters in my game. I don't allow PvP for basically the same reason: I'm pretty sure I cannot run a fun, engaging game for a group that wants it. I made that very clear when I offered to DM. My players don't mind, and have accepted that the tone of game I'm offering is one of heroes striving together to stop bad things, uncover ancient secrets, achieve greatness, and protect the people and places they love. Heroes absolutely get mad at each other sometimes, but they would never let it get to "violence is the only solution" territory--because people who would do that wouldn't be heroes in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

I came here for advice, and I am explaining the background and circumstances that let to my conclussion. The conlussion has not been carried out, I can and am willing to change it if I see a reasonable way out... I was actually hoping for some... loophole solution. I do not want to Player Kill. That is why I am here. To find a way, or to make a decision... and of course, whatever decision I make, I accept the consequences.

There are almost always other ways out. You could wait until that perfect magic item shows up for her rogue and then take it away. You could wait until she steals something or breaks in somewhere and turn her in to the authorities. There are lots of ways to 10x up the revenge for an embarrassment other than killing or mutilating someone.

 

[Dire Bare]

RickTheFox, I think you should sidestep all the morality issues that have been raised here as I don't think they aren't really at the heart of the matter. This situation obviously isn't fun for you. You feel like the player of the rogue has backed you into a corner where your only choices aren't enjoyable. If the other player is aware of how you feel, then they are being a complete jerk. I don't play with people who get their jollies by trashing another player's fun, nor should you. If they are unaware of how you feel, then you need to tell them bluntly person to person, not character to character. At that point, if they continue with their plan, you have your answer. They don't care about you and your fun. The question then changes from what your wizard should do, to what you should do.

I agree that the rogue's player is acting like a jerk. That might not be their intent, but it is the result. @RickTheFox should, IMO, express their frustration as a player with their group. If the other players don't care, think it's funny, or refuse to change . . . finding a new group is always an option.

But, the rogue's player isn't the one who is asking us for advice on the situation, that's why the advice is focused on @RickTheFox's wizard character. One player being a jerk isn't going to be solved by another player responding like a jerk. It will just spread the misery and further break down the group.