If you feel your fellow player’s behavior is disruptive to the game, the appropriate response is to talk to the other player, like mature adults, not to kill their character.
Great idea! I cant believe I did not think of doing that! Ah wait...
Someone double-dog dared me to ask - what other reasons?
First character. Longest played character. Most detailed and for the game most consequential background I have ever had. Because it was really fun seeing how DM sometimes intentionally put a NPC there that was rude to the wizard or crossed him in some way, and seeing how my vengeful noble wizard would get back at them...
It was really something, playing a character with this kind of fault, who can not just let things go, but at the same time wanted to be sneaky about it. It had hilarious results... prestidigitation to soil their pants without them knowing, getting them thrown out of tavern because I made their drink taste like water (and back when innkeeper checked) and they started arguing with the innkeeper..., causing them to fight each other because I lied that the other guy pissed into his mug when he was away (and prestidigitation to made it smell so), a bribe to a guard to lock them up for a night, a persuasion spell that eating horse dung while dancing in the fountain naked would make them immortal... it was always fun in this manner. True, sometimes it got dark, like when a tribe of some humanoid cannibals attacked my wizard and my in-game wife. It was attack on the wizards family, so the wizard burned down theirs. Still though, that is what the rest of the party wanted to do anyway as they had been attacking caravans and needed to be destroyed...
For me, it was the most endearing character because I really liked playing like a noble who only had his certificate of pedigree and nothing else at first and slowly started to build a strong business and influence in a big town, finally seeing some interesting results, getting somewhere.
So yeah, I very much liked that wizard... damn now I remembered all that I feel sad...
I kinda disagree, in that having a character do what it would do regardless of meta-consequences to me says the player's imagination and-or inhabitation of that character is working very well indeed.
Yeah, I feel the same way about RPG. Characters should be consistent with what they do. Steered in a direction, but consistent and true to their nature. It is up to party and DM on session 0 to determine whether such a character should be there or not.
Then keep playing him!
Pull him from the party, sure - but he's still your character; don't sign him over to the DM. Then, in a few months you and the DM can spend a night in the pub where you-as-player plot out the long-term revenge the wizard takes on the rogue, and-or catch him up otherwise.
Never mind that for all you know that rogue's going to die at the next opportunity, in the usual way adventurers sometimes do, thus paving the way for your wizard to come rolling back in.
For some reason, that would not be the same. I want the wizard to stay in that particular world and that particular story. Rather like a villain NPC. Also, I doubt the rogue will die. Our DM is a very good and gentle guy, he is trying hard not to kill PCs. We have actually not have anyone die yet, and I think DM likes it that way. I know I do... Good idea, though.
I'd wager there's a social situation playing out at this table and social cues have not been picked up on in the previous 9 months by the wizard's player, so the rogue's player thought this would be the next step in communicating some kind of discontent about how the wizard player behaves. It's not a good move on his or her part, but again, something about the details here point in this direction to me.
You would lose that wager. I keep telling you guys, I asked. I asked her, I asked DM, I asked the other guys. No problem whatsoever. Not even hints of it.
A character that gets all stabby (or in this case, poisony) after a practical joke isn't a plays-in-a-group character. Making a character that doesn't play well in a group is about as close as you can get to playing D&D wrong - unless it's a murder everyone PvP table, but it isn't one of those.
You are out of line. The wizard plays well with everyone, unless they provoke him in extreme way. It was not a practical joke any more than your collegue accusing you of rape and pressing charges would be. Hilarious for you, right?
I'm just confused on why it has to be murder when there are many other ways to get 10x revenge without resorting to that extreme. Anyway, it seems like you're set on giving up the character and going for the ultimate in revenge. Just remember, without DM fiat, it's pretty much impossible to cover your steps in the face of all the magic and such that exists to ferret you out.
No, there is literally nothing I can target apart from limbs and life of the rogue. Nothing adequate comes to my mind. I am willing to give up a character I hold dear so the character continues in the way he is meant to be, and without me breaking up the party by PC kill. If I wanted to think of a perfect crime in game, I would manage to pull it off I believe. And for some reason, I doubt DM would be too keen to reveal the crime. Think of why is that for yourself.
