When is it okay to kill friendly pcs?

[Righteous Doggy]

So, due to recent events, I was curious when people draw the line and just decide its fine to snap and kill a friendly pc. Feel free to share your stories. My story is in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

I'm asking becuase somehow in one session two pcs had managed to kill of another two pcs on purpose, and I just happen to be involved. We had a pc kicked from our group ingame, and instead of rerolling, he decides to start stalking the group. This isn't an awful thing, we just ignored him. However when we reached the next town, the druid had to make a roll and we found him dead in the morning on our way there. We didn't make any connections becuase he was a pretty awful druid and we'd made enough ingame enemies. Soon after my friends fell through a trapdoor and the same stalker rushes up to me as soon as they're gone, and when I told him I would kill him the next time I saw him and I wanted to know where my friends went, he said he had no idea but would help me look. So... I cast Baleful Polymorph and killed his pc like I'd promised. Later on the DM told us that it was the stalker who killed the pc in cold blood. I have alot of issues with this becuase the druid hadn't done anything to him, and I was the one who told him he wasn't allowed in the party... So, how far should it go before someone starts killing teammates? Was I right in what I did? I'm certain that the stalker wasn't.

[Grinner]

There's no reason to think that he wasn't going for a TPK. He may have just started with the druid.

Anyway, if the act is dramatically appropriate, and if everyone can divorce themselves from their characters emotionally, I see no reason why murder within the party would be inappropriate.

[Righteous Doggy]

There's no reason to think that he wasn't going for a TPK. He may have just started with the druid.

Anyway, if the act is dramatically appropriate, and if everyone can divorce themselves from their characters emotionally, I see no reason why murder within the party would be inappropriate.

Actually there was, up until then he hadn't done anything that insane. It was rather unthinkable that he could even get past all the wizard defences (3 gaurds and a magic circle against evil) and someone kill the druid. He hadn't even struck against the npcs, just suggest doing immoral acts.

I think its inappropriate becuase its usually considered bad manners to murder someone for little to no reason. Its very munchkinlike imo in his case to kill an pc who hadn't done anything to him.

[Anxe]

It's only appropriate to kill fellow PCs for two reasons.
1. It's specifically that type of game where the PCs are competeing.
2. The story has gone in such a way that it makes sense for there to be an intraparty conflict.

You seem to have neither of these things going on. Therefore, it was not justified. Imagine if you were playing football and someone on your team tackled you and then started tackling other players on your team. He'd get booted off the team for not working with the team.

[Fatebreaker]

In the words of Cap'n Reynolds:

"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"

PvP can be a lot of fun. Some games (Shadowrun) make great PvP material because the setting encourages personal greed vs. the collective need to accomplish a goal, with a hefty dose of paranoia thrown in for fun. Players have good reason to not trust their teammates, but working together is something they'll have to do. And if they overcome their differences, well, watching trust build naturally is a cool thing.

In character, you found one member of your party dead, another vanished, and the guy y'all didn't trust was stalking you and acting weird. Kill him and move on.

Out of character, when the other guy chose to put his character in opposition to the party instead of rolling up a new character, he accepted that conflict was a potential outcome.

So don't sweat it. The stalker guy chose to continue playing a character outside the party and killed another player who hadn't done anything to him. This is not a stabilizing element to your game. If y'all want PvP, fine, then killing him is justified. If y'all don't want PvP, and this guy is murdering other player-characters, then slit his throat and tell him not to do it again. If it's really bothering you, maybe talk to his player, or have the DM make it clear what behavior will or will not be tolerated.

Did you at least loot his corpse?

[Righteous Doggy]

Yeah well, I'm not sweating too much about him. I wanted to see what other people had to say, and maybe read some sweet stories out of the deal.

And of course I looted his corpse. He was wearing things he stole from us. Ideally he was going to be a teammate to us all and that was the person's second character in the game. Oddly enough though, we lost 2/5 pcs and have 3 loot list for 3 people to take from now, and I need to go on hiatus and I removed anyone but the core members and DM too. Turns out pretty well!

[Kane0]

Its totally fair game when:

A. The DM knows and approves.
B. The player(s) knows and approves.

So efectively if everyone knows OOC that there will be a conflict and is ok with that, go ahead! Player conflict makes for better RP.

[Doorhandle]

I agree with the above, but I perosnally, would only accept being killed if my death would be totally awesome: Like the infamous scene from doctor strangelove.

[Malachei]

I think the most important aspect of playing the game is having fun. If you're having fun in a competitive, Paranoia-like (I mean the RPG) atmosphere, that's fine as long as everybody is aware of the rules of engagement.

If this is not the case, and players start killing off other PCs because they are angry and metagaming this into the game, then, obviously, you have an OOC problem that needs to be fixed first. Otherwise, things can not only get pretty messy in-game, but out-of-game, as well ("But hey, we're all friends, no?")

[Emmerask]

Its totally fair game when:

A. The DM knows and approves.
B. The player(s) knows and approves.

So efectively if everyone knows OOC that there will be a conflict and is ok with that, go ahead! Player conflict makes for better RP.

Yep pretty much this, in all other cases killing a pc (as a pc) is a no go.

[Jay R]

Unless the game is explicitly PvP, it's not acceptable.

(It's only tolerable when the player doing it is playing in his first, second, or third session. After that, in any team game or sport, I expect the players to get with the program.)

[Sajach]

I think it was justified in character on all accounts because:
A) If you were betrayed by your friends and kicked out of their group then you'd want revenge.
B) If you were angry at a group and you wanted them all dead, killing. The one alone would be a smart thing to do.
And C) killing a man who probaly just killed 2 of your friends is justified.

[Mustard]

It definitely depends on some combination of player attachment to characters, availability of resurrection (and survivors to enact said resurrection), expected campaign direction, and narrative value of the attack/betrayal.

It's sort of the same as having a character die to monsters or traps, but with a little different sort of stigma (i.e. it's already acceptable for a GM to have monsters try to kill the PCs, but in this case the person doing it is not the GM). That is why I think if conflict begins to the enter the picture, the antagonistic PC's player should start to think more GM-like. After all, a GM who wants to kill the PCs can absolutely do that without problems, right? So the GM holds back a little, provides an interesting challenge that tests the players' thinking, clues, buildup/suspense. That kind of thing. So a player having their PC attack the party should think along the same lines, and probably consort with the GM.

Edit: Also, I love this quote when context is removed:

I think its inappropriate becuase its usually considered bad manners to murder someone for little to no reason.

[Tamer Leon]

OP did the right thing in my opinion.

In-character, you had a threat with substantial (if circumstantial) evidence against him, and you had an opening to strike quickly and cleanly to eliminate it.

As a DM, I might have used this (with the other player's permission) to perhaps introduce a new villain later on. But that's just me.

[nedz]

Its usually considered bad manners to murder someone for little to no reason.

Awesome line BTW

PCs killing other PCs is very common, TPKs even, but it is usually accidental.

I don't like the stalker's style of play, but then I have to ask: why was he thrown out of the party ? This was the first PC v PC action.

[Righteous Doggy]

Awesome line BTW

PCs killing other PCs is very common, TPKs even, but it is usually accidental.

I don't like the stalker's style of play, but then I have to ask: why was he thrown out of the party ? This was the first PC v PC action.

Ahh, I actually made another thread about it. He wanted to be a necromancer in a good party. An explicitly evil one at that. So after failing to resist being mind read he sorta ran off into the forest after the authorities and our group chased him down for stealing(read: Graverobbery and attempted murder of a commoner). Also, his class had no skills that resurrected the dead... Also he prevoiusly killed a recently dismissed druid pet for no reason and died from being healed(his own request) as a dread necromancer.

[nedz]

Ahh, I actually made another thread about it. He wanted to be a necromancer in a good party. An explicitly evil one at that. So after failing to resist being mind read he sorta ran off into the forest after the authorities and our group chased him down for stealing(read: Graverobbery and attempted murder of a commoner). Also, his class had no skills that resurrected the dead... Also he prevoiusly killed a recently dismissed druid pet for no reason and died from being healed(his own request) as a dread necromancer.

OK - sounds like he was playing a different game from the rest of you from the start. In which case he was more of an antagonist than a protaganist and should have neen NPC'd by the DM. Though he could have turned into a gollum type character I suppose, though that sounds like it would be beyond this player ?

[Lord_Gareth]

As far as I'm concerned (and this is policy in any game I run as well), the rule is this: IC remains IC, and OOC remains OOC. If there's intra-party conflict and it leads to violence, then it leads to violence (and a bunch of hardened mercenaries that make their living killing things and stealing their stuff using violence to solve their disputes makes a certain amount of sense) as long as the rationale is in character. Meta-conflict isn't tolerated because I don't tolerate metagaming.

That being said, I've played in campaigns where that's not the case, but in the event that conflict comes up within the party I always feel like the experience has been weakened somehow because of the knowledge that we aren't allowed to fight each other - not even a little (cannot tell you the number of brawls my parties have been in to settle the ownership of magical items).